Re: Whatcha' wanta have?????

Tim Schaefer wrote: > > The ability to control logging is what makes IDS the most totally > controlable database on the planet. None of the other databases > worth mentioning, except maybe possibly Oracle has the flexibility > when it comes to transaction logs. I'm not discounting or dismissing > your points, but maybe only pointing out please appreciate the > difference IDS brought to the table, for me at least, it's now all > academic. The idea, the luxury of arguing the ability to log or not > to log, it makes me cry. :-( I'm sorry that your company panicked and changed engines unncessarily. One of our teams that has recently taken on IBM Lotus Domino in a big way would be laughing at suggestions that IBM buys products and then kills them off. Quite the contrary. But this has been gone into a thousand times before... If anyone wants to reply, PLEASE rename the subject immediately so I can killfile it at the first wiff of smoke. I will not be partaking in further discussion on whether IBM is going to kill IDS. > Enjoy the acedemics while the product lingers, once it's gone, well, > it's really the end of a great product. Won't be academic for us while-ever we still recommend IDS as the preferred engine, and the customers nearly always accept that unless they already have an extensive in-house Oracle or MSV or .... system. Thankyou FourJs for allowing us to service these new customers too.

Andrew, My company didn't panic and switch. I have been working in a multi-million dollar company that was using until I arrived, strictly Microsoft products, SQL-Server being one of them. When I came in, the first thing I started doing was figuring out how Linux could be used, ( without jeopardizing my job ) which would open the door for an alternative database product that would be enterprise quality, and eventually supplant SQL-Server. Today almost a year and a half later, we are getting closer to that reality, with Linux proving itself by the numbers. We had an ETL tool running miserably on Windows that increased its performance immediately 3x on some jobs and others 10x simply by moving to Linux. This got management excited, and has now saved us a lot of real money by moving to Linux. But it was the only way to get there, by the numbers. We haven't made a final decision on what that database will be, but I think it's safe to say it will be between Oracle and IBM. Both are on notice to show us the money, by that I mean they each have to go through a Proof-of-Concept and prove to us their merits. Being the kind of individual that I am, I am moving slowly through the murky water of bs to get to the right solution for our company. Informix will never be an option for us, until the magical fantasy of Informix being marketed occurs, and proof that it won't be discontinued. We couldn't even find people to work on Informix if we had to, and I'm certainly not going to be the only one with that expertise supporting it. That would put me and my family at risk, thusly I couldn't care less about Informix, and certainly won't even consider them in our evaluation process. Informix doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned for our evaluation, and it's not an emotional decision, just business. You should someday have an opportunity to work in an all Microsoft shop, with no UNIX or Linux of any kind. You will be amazed at how problem solving occurs in this environment, and the low expectation of performance from the database. It's as if the database marketplace is starting all over, this time around without Informix. When people here get angry at IBM, it shows me they are not looking at the business perspective. The more I think about it the more I think that IBM must be looking at every angle of Informix technology and aggressively wanting to commoditize it into either DB2 or something nearby. They understand the meaning of open systems, I'm sure they see Informix as something they can fold into that thinking. But will it ever get marketed? Probably not, it's just not good business sense at this point. South Florida is supposedly still infected with Informix in some shops, ( bitter enders! ) but according to our IBM rep ( gads the cat is out now ) nothing really significant and no new customers. IBM and Oracle have both been extremely nice to us, and extremely interested in our business. Very different attitude from when the arroganti from Informix were around. DB2 may not be perfect, but in this market who said it has to be? Who says it has to be as fast as XPS? Is that even relevant? Probably not. Tim "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> wrote in message news:c0ekfn$16c1b0$1@ID-79573.news.uni-berlin.de... > Tim Schaefer wrote: > > > > The ability to control logging is what makes IDS the most totally > > controlable database on the planet. None of the other databases > > worth mentioning, except maybe possibly Oracle has the flexibility > > when it comes to transaction logs. I'm not discounting or dismissing > > your points, but maybe only pointing out please appreciate the > > difference IDS brought to the table, for me at least, it's now all > > academic. The idea, the luxury of arguing the ability to log or not > > to log, it makes me cry. :-( > > I'm sorry that your company panicked and changed engines unncessarily. One > of our teams that has recently taken on IBM Lotus Domino in a big way would > be laughing at suggestions that IBM buys products and then kills them off. > Quite the contrary. But this has been gone into a thousand times before... > If anyone wants to reply, PLEASE rename the subject immediately so I can > killfile it at the first wiff of smoke. I will not be partaking in further > discussion on whether IBM is going to kill IDS. > > > Enjoy the acedemics while the product lingers, once it's gone, well, > > it's really the end of a great product. > > Won't be academic for us while-ever we still recommend IDS as the preferred > engine, and the customers nearly always accept that unless they already have > an extensive in-house Oracle or MSV or .... system. Thankyou FourJs for > allowing us to service these new customers too. > >

Like i said, i'm not getting involved, but i'll make sure the subject doesn't drown out Madison's thread. Please please please follow up to Tim on this subject. what do the netgeeks say? oh yeah *subject plonked*

Andrew, So Malcom turned his self-righteous-zealot-asshole-moderator-job over to YOU? I find it annoying when arrogant-lil-bitches say they're not getting involved yet get involved and then pontificate dismissals as if they are in charge, or their opinion is more important. Like you're the boss here or something? Your dismissive attitude is annoying but the sucking up and political-asslicking in your posts are actually more offensive than anything. In case you weren't aware there are actually people out there that do not have to look for group consensus on their opinions, and are willing to stand on their own two feet, right or wrong, without whimpering to the community for support. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, in fact, I look forward to people disagreeing. After all if we were all the same wouldn't that be boring. You said things to me that were inaccurate, then when I respond you suddenly, spinelessly duck out, and then add your typical political sucking up. You must have to carry a towel around wiping your face off spending so much time up other-peoples-asses. Anyway, I know you're trying to reach sainthood by the end of year, please do me a small favor don't go and whine and weeze to the community that I stood up to you. Go ahead, do the right thing, pull your head out, and have a hearty, piping hot cup of STFU. I look forward to a response to ME without your typical request for community support. That would show me some leadership, but I'm willing to bet you'll whimp out. You won't be the first, that's for sure. Tim "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com> wrote in message news:c0f098$o7fjg$1@ID-79573.news.uni-berlin.de... > > Like i said, i'm not getting involved, but i'll make sure the subject > doesn't drown out Madison's thread. Please please please follow up to Tim on > this subject. > > what do the netgeeks say? > oh yeah > > *subject plonked* > >