Graph of the history of databases












3















There are several nice graphs (in the computer science sense: nodes and arcs) of the history of programming languages, such as http://rigaux.org/language-study/diagram.html



I haven't found one of operating systems in general, but there was one for UNIX around somewhere, and this one for Linux distributions was easy to find: https://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-kernel-history-and-distribution-time-line.html



Database systems have a rich and tangled history, for most of which as far as I can tell documentation exists, but is not as easy to find as for more familiar matters such as home computing.



Does there exist a graph or other form of comprehensive overview of the history of database and ERP systems?










share|improve this question


















  • 3





    While the topic is interesting, this question asks of a kind of list answer (in graphic form) - eventually even a link only answer, a fact making it non-fitting to RC.SE, doesn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:06


















3















There are several nice graphs (in the computer science sense: nodes and arcs) of the history of programming languages, such as http://rigaux.org/language-study/diagram.html



I haven't found one of operating systems in general, but there was one for UNIX around somewhere, and this one for Linux distributions was easy to find: https://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-kernel-history-and-distribution-time-line.html



Database systems have a rich and tangled history, for most of which as far as I can tell documentation exists, but is not as easy to find as for more familiar matters such as home computing.



Does there exist a graph or other form of comprehensive overview of the history of database and ERP systems?










share|improve this question


















  • 3





    While the topic is interesting, this question asks of a kind of list answer (in graphic form) - eventually even a link only answer, a fact making it non-fitting to RC.SE, doesn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:06
















3












3








3








There are several nice graphs (in the computer science sense: nodes and arcs) of the history of programming languages, such as http://rigaux.org/language-study/diagram.html



I haven't found one of operating systems in general, but there was one for UNIX around somewhere, and this one for Linux distributions was easy to find: https://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-kernel-history-and-distribution-time-line.html



Database systems have a rich and tangled history, for most of which as far as I can tell documentation exists, but is not as easy to find as for more familiar matters such as home computing.



Does there exist a graph or other form of comprehensive overview of the history of database and ERP systems?










share|improve this question














There are several nice graphs (in the computer science sense: nodes and arcs) of the history of programming languages, such as http://rigaux.org/language-study/diagram.html



I haven't found one of operating systems in general, but there was one for UNIX around somewhere, and this one for Linux distributions was easy to find: https://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-kernel-history-and-distribution-time-line.html



Database systems have a rich and tangled history, for most of which as far as I can tell documentation exists, but is not as easy to find as for more familiar matters such as home computing.



Does there exist a graph or other form of comprehensive overview of the history of database and ERP systems?







history databases






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Mar 31 at 21:35









rwallacerwallace

10.6k453157




10.6k453157








  • 3





    While the topic is interesting, this question asks of a kind of list answer (in graphic form) - eventually even a link only answer, a fact making it non-fitting to RC.SE, doesn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:06
















  • 3





    While the topic is interesting, this question asks of a kind of list answer (in graphic form) - eventually even a link only answer, a fact making it non-fitting to RC.SE, doesn't it?

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:06










3




3





While the topic is interesting, this question asks of a kind of list answer (in graphic form) - eventually even a link only answer, a fact making it non-fitting to RC.SE, doesn't it?

– Raffzahn
Apr 1 at 0:06







While the topic is interesting, this question asks of a kind of list answer (in graphic form) - eventually even a link only answer, a fact making it non-fitting to RC.SE, doesn't it?

– Raffzahn
Apr 1 at 0:06












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














the german wikipedia article on databases mentions the



Genealogy of Relational Database Management Systems



you can find it at



https://hpi.de/naumann/projects/rdbms-genealogy.html






share|improve this answer
























  • Well, this is quite a link only anyswer - not your fault, as the question asks for som. Also, the graph is missing out many data base system while focusing rather on Modern (and PC-Alike) developments, this

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:05











  • @Raffzahn I've only had a brief look at it but it seems reasonably comprehensive to me. What do you think is missing (granted that it focuses on relational databases only)?

    – JeremyP
    Apr 1 at 10:15






  • 1





    @JeremyP Next to all prior mainframe products. And yes, most important, everythin that didn't sell itself as relational.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 13:48











  • @Raffzahn It advertises itself as a genealogy of relational database management systems. You wouldn't expect to see non relational systems in there. And there weren't any significant relational database management systems before IBM invented them.

    – JeremyP
    Apr 2 at 8:41














Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "648"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9497%2fgraph-of-the-history-of-databases%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














the german wikipedia article on databases mentions the



Genealogy of Relational Database Management Systems



you can find it at



https://hpi.de/naumann/projects/rdbms-genealogy.html






share|improve this answer
























  • Well, this is quite a link only anyswer - not your fault, as the question asks for som. Also, the graph is missing out many data base system while focusing rather on Modern (and PC-Alike) developments, this

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:05











  • @Raffzahn I've only had a brief look at it but it seems reasonably comprehensive to me. What do you think is missing (granted that it focuses on relational databases only)?

    – JeremyP
    Apr 1 at 10:15






  • 1





    @JeremyP Next to all prior mainframe products. And yes, most important, everythin that didn't sell itself as relational.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 13:48











  • @Raffzahn It advertises itself as a genealogy of relational database management systems. You wouldn't expect to see non relational systems in there. And there weren't any significant relational database management systems before IBM invented them.

    – JeremyP
    Apr 2 at 8:41


















3














the german wikipedia article on databases mentions the



Genealogy of Relational Database Management Systems



you can find it at



https://hpi.de/naumann/projects/rdbms-genealogy.html






share|improve this answer
























  • Well, this is quite a link only anyswer - not your fault, as the question asks for som. Also, the graph is missing out many data base system while focusing rather on Modern (and PC-Alike) developments, this

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:05











  • @Raffzahn I've only had a brief look at it but it seems reasonably comprehensive to me. What do you think is missing (granted that it focuses on relational databases only)?

    – JeremyP
    Apr 1 at 10:15






  • 1





    @JeremyP Next to all prior mainframe products. And yes, most important, everythin that didn't sell itself as relational.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 13:48











  • @Raffzahn It advertises itself as a genealogy of relational database management systems. You wouldn't expect to see non relational systems in there. And there weren't any significant relational database management systems before IBM invented them.

    – JeremyP
    Apr 2 at 8:41
















3












3








3







the german wikipedia article on databases mentions the



Genealogy of Relational Database Management Systems



you can find it at



https://hpi.de/naumann/projects/rdbms-genealogy.html






share|improve this answer













the german wikipedia article on databases mentions the



Genealogy of Relational Database Management Systems



you can find it at



https://hpi.de/naumann/projects/rdbms-genealogy.html







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Mar 31 at 22:39









UliUli

34123




34123













  • Well, this is quite a link only anyswer - not your fault, as the question asks for som. Also, the graph is missing out many data base system while focusing rather on Modern (and PC-Alike) developments, this

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:05











  • @Raffzahn I've only had a brief look at it but it seems reasonably comprehensive to me. What do you think is missing (granted that it focuses on relational databases only)?

    – JeremyP
    Apr 1 at 10:15






  • 1





    @JeremyP Next to all prior mainframe products. And yes, most important, everythin that didn't sell itself as relational.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 13:48











  • @Raffzahn It advertises itself as a genealogy of relational database management systems. You wouldn't expect to see non relational systems in there. And there weren't any significant relational database management systems before IBM invented them.

    – JeremyP
    Apr 2 at 8:41





















  • Well, this is quite a link only anyswer - not your fault, as the question asks for som. Also, the graph is missing out many data base system while focusing rather on Modern (and PC-Alike) developments, this

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 0:05











  • @Raffzahn I've only had a brief look at it but it seems reasonably comprehensive to me. What do you think is missing (granted that it focuses on relational databases only)?

    – JeremyP
    Apr 1 at 10:15






  • 1





    @JeremyP Next to all prior mainframe products. And yes, most important, everythin that didn't sell itself as relational.

    – Raffzahn
    Apr 1 at 13:48











  • @Raffzahn It advertises itself as a genealogy of relational database management systems. You wouldn't expect to see non relational systems in there. And there weren't any significant relational database management systems before IBM invented them.

    – JeremyP
    Apr 2 at 8:41



















Well, this is quite a link only anyswer - not your fault, as the question asks for som. Also, the graph is missing out many data base system while focusing rather on Modern (and PC-Alike) developments, this

– Raffzahn
Apr 1 at 0:05





Well, this is quite a link only anyswer - not your fault, as the question asks for som. Also, the graph is missing out many data base system while focusing rather on Modern (and PC-Alike) developments, this

– Raffzahn
Apr 1 at 0:05













@Raffzahn I've only had a brief look at it but it seems reasonably comprehensive to me. What do you think is missing (granted that it focuses on relational databases only)?

– JeremyP
Apr 1 at 10:15





@Raffzahn I've only had a brief look at it but it seems reasonably comprehensive to me. What do you think is missing (granted that it focuses on relational databases only)?

– JeremyP
Apr 1 at 10:15




1




1





@JeremyP Next to all prior mainframe products. And yes, most important, everythin that didn't sell itself as relational.

– Raffzahn
Apr 1 at 13:48





@JeremyP Next to all prior mainframe products. And yes, most important, everythin that didn't sell itself as relational.

– Raffzahn
Apr 1 at 13:48













@Raffzahn It advertises itself as a genealogy of relational database management systems. You wouldn't expect to see non relational systems in there. And there weren't any significant relational database management systems before IBM invented them.

– JeremyP
Apr 2 at 8:41







@Raffzahn It advertises itself as a genealogy of relational database management systems. You wouldn't expect to see non relational systems in there. And there weren't any significant relational database management systems before IBM invented them.

– JeremyP
Apr 2 at 8:41




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Retrocomputing Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fretrocomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9497%2fgraph-of-the-history-of-databases%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...