OT: IDS Feature Request List (including potential new requests).

Two Pence echoed 6.02214199 × 10 to the power of 23 posts explaining why IBM cannot possibly have both DB2 and IDS using an absolutely inarguable analogy: >I remain curious how you can market two peer products owned by the same >company without confusing the customer. It would be the same for a car >manufacturer or any other line of business. People see right through it. Well, I'm convinced. We can stop the argument, now. After all, everybody knows that no car company can sell the same or even similar cars at the same time. You would not see Ford selling the Taurus and the Mercury Sable, for example, or, using design elements from the Mazda line, replacing them with the Ford Fusion, the Mercury Milan, and the Lincoln Zephyr, while only having a significant ad campaign for the Ford line. Right. That's done. Everyone agrees. IBM is obviously run by a bunch of fools and only those who have drunk the blue Kool-Aid can't see it. So can we please, for the love of Usenet, stop arguing about it? I mean, I love having my inbox filled with this chaff as much as the next guy, but it makes it hard to recognize the important email from my good friend in Nigeria who needs me to help with a spot of banking difficulty. Just as soon as that little deal goes through, I promise to buy IDS from IBM and promote the way we all know it should be promoted. Sincerely, Christopher Coleman Steering Committee President Kansas City Informix Users Group www.iiug.org/kciug Database Analyst Pharmacy Division Mediware Information Systems, Inc. 913/307-1073 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fusion_%28North_American%29 http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/compare/details/?vehicles=16930|17058|16976

Christopher Coleman wrote: > Two Pence echoed 6.02214199 ' 10 to the power of 23 posts explaining why IBM cannot possibly have both DB2 and IDS using an absolutely inarguable analogy: > It seems you have time on your hands to point out such things. > >> I remain curious how you can market two peer products owned by the same company without confusing the customer. It would be the same for a car manufacturer or any other line of business. People >> see right through it. > > > Well, I'm convinced. We can stop the argument, now. After all, everybody knows that no car company can sell the same or even similar cars at the same time. You would not see Ford selling the > Taurus and the Mercury Sable, for example, or, using design elements from the Mazda line, replacing them with the Ford Fusion, the Mercury Milan, and the Lincoln Zephyr, while only having a > significant ad campaign for the Ford line. > Superficially you're right. If the base model is the same your argument is relevant. However, DB2 and Informix are discrete, separate products. > Right. That's done. Everyone agrees. IBM is obviously run by a bunch of fools and only those who have drunk the blue Kool-Aid can't see it. > I'm sensing some frustration here. > So can we please, for the love of Usenet, stop arguing about it? I mean, I love having my inbox filled with this chaff as much as the next guy, but it makes it hard to recognize the important > email from my good friend in Nigeria who needs me to help with a spot of banking difficulty. Just as soon as that little deal goes through, I promise to buy IDS from IBM and promote the way we all > know it should be promoted. > Well I'm confused by a lot of what you've said, but I do get the impression that perhaps Usenet email is something you should probably stay away from. The idea that you would have all the other banter and silly comments come from c.d.i., and say nothing about it, and then someone says something of a relevant topic and you complain tells me you are a confused and frustrated individual. I find it curious that you would attack me for using Usenet and having a conversation but not say anything about any of the other 'relevant' conversations that fill your inbox from c.d.i. That puts you in the internet policeman department, as a self-appointed bandwidth monitor. All those bits going to waste! Besides you're the pompous ass that posted here a while back about how Kansas was so beneath you and how much of a struggle it was for you to have to live amongst such common folk who couldn't possibly understand your academic and cultural genius. I do relish your having to live where the winters are filled with wind and snow and slop. Have a nice and miserably cold, snowy, ice-filled day! > Sincerely, > > Christopher Coleman > > Steering Committee President Kansas City Informix Users Group www.iiug.org/kciug > > Database Analyst Pharmacy Division Mediware Information Systems, Inc. 913/307-1073 > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Fusion_%28North_American%29 http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/fusion/compare/details/?vehicles=16930|17058|16976

Two Pence said: > > Superficially you're right. If the base model is the same your argument > is relevant. > However, DB2 and Informix are discrete, separate products. Why? At the end of the day, a car is a car. If the base platform is the same or the base platform is different, you can still use it to get from A to B. Same with a database. At the end of the day, you stick data in, you get data out. Why is his reasoning wrong, just because IDS and DB2 are different products? Informix were quite clearly capable of differentiating U2 from IDS, but they are both databases. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:20:10 -0000 (GMT), "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote: > >Two Pence said: >> >> Superficially you're right. If the base model is the same your argument >> is relevant. >> However, DB2 and Informix are discrete, separate products. > >Why? At the end of the day, a car is a car. If the base platform is the >same or the base platform is different, you can still use it to get from A >to B. Same with a database. At the end of the day, you stick data in, you >get data out. > >Why is his reasoning wrong, just because IDS and DB2 are different >products? Informix were quite clearly capable of differentiating U2 from >IDS, but they are both databases. Hey, stop feeding the trolls . . . . .ah, too late . . . .8-) JWC