Re: XPS

Data Goob wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> Interesting thread. For the record I agree largely with Mark. >> Companies like Oracle and IBM do not feed of the commodity market. > > > Actually IBM is trying to push DB2 as the next commodity db as a part > of the operating system. What platform is it? iSeries? that uses > DB2 as part of the system to maintain the system. Data goob.. no offense but you are not understanding the market any better than you claim IBM does. DB2 for OS/400 is a not the strategic product. That would be idiotic since it's stuck on a niche OS. When I see MS efforts to move the DB into the OS my reaction is: Been there, done that, doesn't work.... What you call marketshare is not what IBM or Oracle call market share. The number of mySQL installations is as irrelevant as the number of Access installation. IBM does not intersect much in th esegment and has no interest to do so. > >> The features implemented into the open source DBMS are following the >> trail blazed by the major vendor in the last 25 years. > And because of the perceived high-cost of top tier databases, you're > watching the reinvention of the database market coming out of the > open source market. MySQL, PostGres, etc. etc. But please, go ahead > and ignore them. By the way Cloudscape is interesting, but not the > big play, it will have to come over in MySQL's space. Correct. It's a _reinvention_ and it is a sign of commoditization. > >> I dare say that a similar situation holds for OS. To the best of my >> knowledge Linux has yet to provide innovative value. > > > Flame-bait right? No. My honest to God, personal opinion. > >> I'm not aware of any open source project that has provided true >> innovation and I'm at a loss at how that would be achieved. > Uhm, actually, there are a lot of internet-based marketing companies > using MySQL exclusively, and no big-gun database anywhere on site. > I know of several in my region who are doing quite well, one to the > tune of $300 Million USD annually in revenue, all on MySQL. The > innovation is not just the technology but how the business takes > cheap software and hardware and competes with companies that use > expensive hardware and expensive software. Now THAT is interesting, > and innovative. I don't see where the hardware comes into play here. And I was talking about technical innovation because when you talk about products like DB2 or Oracle or Informix XPS/IDS/... you are talking about codebases and not business concepts. IBM is not in the low margin business. Neither is Oracle. > > To also say that Linux has no innovative value is to be a real > idiot, and not understand the market. It's not about "advanced" > features, it's about reasonable pricing and marketing of your products. Well that's how I defined innovation in the thread (and you obviously understood that I did that). I don't nail open source and an un-innovative. I nail the technology of the open source products. And that is not meant to be against mySQL or any other open source product. All I'm saying is that commercial products will have value as long as they can technically innovate and blaze the trail. When that stops: New game. Neither Oracle or IBM are companies like P&G who wage wars over the market share of tooth-paste. -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > Data Goob wrote: > >> Serge Rielau wrote: >> >>> Interesting thread. For the record I agree largely with Mark. >>> Companies like Oracle and IBM do not feed of the commodity market. >> >> >> >> Actually IBM is trying to push DB2 as the next commodity db as a part >> of the operating system. What platform is it? iSeries? that uses >> DB2 as part of the system to maintain the system. > > Data goob.. no offense but you are not understanding the market any > better than you claim IBM does. > DB2 for OS/400 is a not the strategic product. That would be idiotic > since it's stuck on a niche OS. > When I see MS efforts to move the DB into the OS my reaction is: > Been there, done that, doesn't work.... > What you call marketshare is not what IBM or Oracle call market share. > The number of mySQL installations is as irrelevant as the number of > Access installation. > IBM does not intersect much in th esegment and has no interest to do so. > Oh, OK. I stand corrected. Then it should be no problem to push Informix on a par with DB2, and promote downloads, etc etc etc in marketing collateral since companies are going to pay for support of their favorite db anyway. That's not reality. For banner reasons, IBM has decided that Informix must always take a backseat to DB2. We all know it, it makes common sense. But IBM should not try to make statements ( implied or otherwise ) that Informix is important, and then do little to nothing to market it. This is an insult to say the least. And it's actually kind of an insult to suggest that somehow Oracle is pushing databases like Informix or even Sybase. This ignores the real market. Oracle gets away with "we're a db company" only when it's convenient, but the reality is that really Oracle pushes applications that run on their own database. It's a lock-in strategy more than having a really good database product, and not being an authoritative database brand based on the best technology. Anyone who's really been around the track with databases knows it's Oracle vs everyone else. To use the Oracle vs my-db is really a demonstration of having only a superficial understanding of how companies really use databases. DB2 should be winning on its own merits, just like Informix, and market on its merits. Informix needed ( or needs ) only to be marketed on its own strengths, never really had to even worry about Oracle. It was just never really marketed. Oracle will always go for the lock-in, that's why Peoplesoft is so important. The technical merits are just academic discussion and distraction. All the other db companies are just the opposite, they are db companies that use applications, not application companies that use databases. >> >>> The features implemented into the open source DBMS are following the >>> trail blazed by the major vendor in the last 25 years. >> >> And because of the perceived high-cost of top tier databases, you're >> watching the reinvention of the database market coming out of the >> open source market. MySQL, PostGres, etc. etc. But please, go ahead >> and ignore them. By the way Cloudscape is interesting, but not the >> big play, it will have to come over in MySQL's space. > > Correct. It's a _reinvention_ and it is a sign of commoditization. > >> >>> I dare say that a similar situation holds for OS. To the best of my >>> knowledge Linux has yet to provide innovative value. >> >> >> >> Flame-bait right? > > No. My honest to God, personal opinion. > >> >>> I'm not aware of any open source project that has provided true >>> innovation and I'm at a loss at how that would be achieved. >> >> Uhm, actually, there are a lot of internet-based marketing companies >> using MySQL exclusively, and no big-gun database anywhere on site. >> I know of several in my region who are doing quite well, one to the >> tune of $300 Million USD annually in revenue, all on MySQL. The >> innovation is not just the technology but how the business takes >> cheap software and hardware and competes with companies that use >> expensive hardware and expensive software. Now THAT is interesting, >> and innovative. > > I don't see where the hardware comes into play here. OK. Companies buy hardware. Hardware needs software. System architects design systems based on available software options. Basic stuff. If product A costs this much, hmmmmm, what does product B have, and how can we make it work for our business. Businesses don't buy a database and then just slap it on any machine without a little thought as to how it's going to perform. Even the most mercenary hard-core bulk emailers ( spam pushers ) know they have to buy certain hardware for their databases or the stuff just won't run fast enough. > And I was talking about technical innovation because when you talk about > products like DB2 or Oracle or Informix XPS/IDS/... you are talking > about codebases and not business concepts. > IBM is not in the low margin business. Neither is Oracle. > No actually I **am** talking business. I use spreadsheets and real cost analysis based on what a vendor tells me it is going to cost the company to pay for a product. The owner/ceo/boss tells me it costs too much find something cheaper. This is how business operates, and why SQL-Server, the grand cockroach of databases ends up in places that should be using something else. >> >> To also say that Linux has no innovative value is to be a real >> idiot, and not understand the market. It's not about "advanced" >> features, it's about reasonable pricing and marketing of your products. > > Well that's how I defined innovation in the thread (and you obviously > understood that I did that). > I don't nail open source and an un-innovative. I nail the technology of > the open source products. And that is not meant to be against mySQL or > any other open source product. All I'm saying is that commercial > products will have value as long as they can technically innovate and > blaze the trail. Actually MySQL is Informix SE without a lot of the goodies SE had 10 years ago. But MySQL is simply pushing into the biggest market out there, SMBs! They love developers, they use a lot of common sense too. > When that stops: New game. > Neither Oracle or IBM are companies like P&G who wage wars over the > market share of tooth-paste. > Stick to technical issues, and stay away from understanding the db market you don't really get it.

Data Goob wrote: > No actually I **am** talking business. I use spreadsheets and > real cost analysis based on what a vendor tells me it is going > to cost the company to pay for a product. The owner/ceo/boss > tells me it costs too much find something cheaper. This is how > business operates, and why SQL-Server, the grand cockroach of > databases ends up in places that should be using something else. OK.. Now we are talking YOUR definition which is OK. We just need to agree on it. It was earlier said (rightly or not) that SQL Server compared more to smaller licensing offerings by DB2. You also note that mySQL is comming in at the SMB market. DB2 IM serves this market with the Express product line. (including IDS Express which was announced recently). IDS in general, is aimed at embedded OLTP (and it was noted that DB2 cuurently does not play in this market a lot) and ORDBMS (where Informix has invested a lot more than DB2 for good or bad). So there finally is a clear mission. I'm not privy of the pricing in detail but apparently Mark is. He noted that DB2 pricing appears to be gunning in this area for SQL Server and I believe that. >>> To also say that Linux has no innovative value is to be a real >>> idiot, and not understand the market. It's not about "advanced" >>> features, it's about reasonable pricing and marketing of your products. >> >> >> Well that's how I defined innovation in the thread (and you obviously >> understood that I did that). >> I don't nail open source and an un-innovative. I nail the technology >> of the open source products. And that is not meant to be against mySQL >> or any other open source product. All I'm saying is that commercial >> products will have value as long as they can technically innovate and >> blaze the trail. > Actually MySQL is Informix SE without a lot of the goodies SE had > 10 years ago. But MySQL is simply pushing into the biggest market > out there, SMBs! They love developers, they use a lot of common > sense too. To IBM SMB is 500 - 1000employees. How do you define SMB? The corner store selling phone cards is not interesting to IBM. >> When that stops: New game. >> Neither Oracle or IBM are companies like P&G who wage wars over the >> market share of tooth-paste. > Stick to technical issues, and stay away from understanding the db market > you don't really get it. That is likely true, luckily it's not my job. But do you understand it better than those at IBM who make the decisions? What are your qualifications? There is a game being played and all of us try to learn the rules (which change constantly) through observation. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > Data Goob wrote: > >> No actually I **am** talking business. I use spreadsheets and >> real cost analysis based on what a vendor tells me it is going >> to cost the company to pay for a product. The owner/ceo/boss >> tells me it costs too much find something cheaper. This is how >> business operates, and why SQL-Server, the grand cockroach of >> databases ends up in places that should be using something else. > > OK.. Now we are talking YOUR definition which is OK. > We just need to agree on it. > It was earlier said (rightly or not) that SQL Server compared more to > smaller licensing offerings by DB2. You also note that mySQL is comming > in at the SMB market. > DB2 IM serves this market with the Express product line. (including IDS > Express which was announced recently). > IDS in general, is aimed at embedded OLTP (and it was noted that DB2 > cuurently does not play in this market a lot) and ORDBMS (where Informix > has invested a lot more than DB2 for good or bad). > So there finally is a clear mission. For **IBM** there is a clear mission. But the market sees overlap on the products. Informix developers and techs see competing database products. Newcomers to IBM see DB2, that's it. Informix is just a point of confusion to even the most casual observer. Nobody that uses Informix for any time even thinks of Informix in the embedded space, that's just silly and will never fly. There are too many other choices that are already in play. Sell SE in the MySQL space, it's a real ballgame that IBM should get into. > I'm not privy of the pricing in detail but apparently Mark is. > He noted that DB2 pricing appears to be gunning in this area for SQL > Server and I believe that. > Workgroup DB2 = SQL-Server. This is what IBM-at-large is selling. :: :: :: >> Stick to technical issues, and stay away from understanding the db market >> you don't really get it. > > That is likely true, luckily it's not my job. But do you understand it > better than those at IBM who make the decisions? I live in the real world, not marketing hype, or speculation as to what a company may or may not need. There are still a majority of companies out there that are still using old-world thinking: Buy a big multi-cpu system, and slap expensive software on it, and we'll make our target goals for the company on this or that technology decision. Meanwhile the owners of the company are asking how to become more competitive like those guys that use open source. Then companies like IBM come in and play car-salesmen and the sale stalls and IBM scratches its head and can't figure out why they didn't get the sale. They will get the sale when they can show the customer real business value based on cheap hardware and cheap software, with licensing that says we aren't going to soak you for making a decision to go with us. Microsoft has been playing this game for years, it's not magic. And now even Oracle is playing this game with 10g and RAC, although they still have to overcome the "Oracle-is-expensive" perception, real or imagined. The SMB space is the biggest market, it's only a matter of time before IBM wakes up to it. > What are your qualifications? There is a game being played and all of us > try to learn the rules (which change constantly) through observation. > 20 years in IT, most of it on UNIX and Linux. Next question. > Cheers > Serge

Informix in the embedded space will not fly...then why did IBM last Thusday talk about winning a big deal with a company that makes phone switches and had embedded Informix in it? The slides NOW showed Informix and DB2 development going in parallel,. not merging... Also Informix Express for Linux and Windows is cheaper than Workgroup Server. Aren't Linux and Windows cheap platforms? I've asked for Solaris to be added to the list... WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM IBM? They ARE listening now.

<david@smooth1.co.uk> wrote in message news:1117485828.894955.20930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Informix in the embedded space will not fly...then why did IBM > last Thusday talk about winning a big deal with a company > that makes phone switches and had embedded Informix > in it? Leaving aside whether or not the "Informix is the IBM database of choice for embedded apps" play will work or not, I can;t believe it's quite the principal marketing message that you, as someone makes a living from your Informix skills, wants to hear ...