Re: There needs to be a free Informix Express
Not a technical support thread but a debate over IBM's licensing policy: posters argue IBM should offer a free, feature-limited "Informix Express" edition (suggested caps of 1 CPU, 2GB RAM, 10GB disk, ~100 connections, no support) to get IDS into the hands of developers and startups, the way Oracle offers a cut-down edition. Discussion covers whether Oracle's free edition limits features or just resources, and whether IBM is guarding against lost revenue. It devolves into IDS-vs-Oracle sniping; no conclusion or resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
On Oct 7, 9:36 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > The "dumbed down" of Oracle limits the number of CPUs and the size > of the database ... not the features. > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Really? So the "dumbed down" version can do RAC and also has the full geo-spatial implementation? Sorry I don't believe that. Plus being able to take advantage of the number of cores in my box is a feature as is the size of the database. And that boys and girls confirms the point. IDS is far superior that even a "dumbed down" version, still kicks butt. -G
On Oct 7, 12:03 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 7, 9:36 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > > > The "dumbed down" of Oracle limits the number of CPUs and the size > > of the database ... not the features. > > Daniel A. Morgan > > University of Washington > > damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) > > Really? So the "dumbed down" version can do RAC and also has the full > geo-spatial implementation? > > Sorry I don't believe that. Plus being able to take advantage of the > number of cores in my box is a feature as is the size of the database. > > And that boys and girls confirms the point. > > IDS is far superior that even a "dumbed down" version, still kicks > butt. > > -G If it kicks so much butt, which I personally think it does, why is IBM worried about a loss in "potential" revenue when the actual revenues could be so much higher. If it were easier for developers and startups to get a hold of and use more companies would start to use resulting in more licenses being purchased. Someone at IBM is either much smarter than me and see's the flaw in my thinking or they're just dumb and can't see the possibilities. They are making decisions out of fear instead of trusting the product to sell itself if it gets into the right hands. Have some faith in IDS and just get it out there.
Redden96 wrote: > On Oct 7, 12:03 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 9:36 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: >> >> >>> The "dumbed down" of Oracle limits the number of CPUs and the size >>> of the database ... not the features. >>> Daniel A. Morgan >>> University of Washington >>> damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) >>> >> Really? So the "dumbed down" version can do RAC and also has the full >> geo-spatial implementation? >> >> Sorry I don't believe that. Plus being able to take advantage of the >> number of cores in my box is a feature as is the size of the database. >> >> And that boys and girls confirms the point. >> >> IDS is far superior that even a "dumbed down" version, still kicks >> butt. >> >> -G >> > > If it kicks so much butt, which I personally think it does, why is IBM > worried about a loss in "potential" revenue when the actual revenues > could be so much higher. If it were easier for developers and startups > to get a hold of and use more companies would start to use resulting > in more licenses being purchased. > Not if the "dumbed down" version could do everything they wanted. > Someone at IBM is either much smarter than me and see's the flaw in my > thinking or they're just dumb and can't see the possibilities. They > are making decisions out of fear instead of trusting the product to > sell itself if it gets into the right hands. Have some faith in IDS > and just get it out there. > It's probably a bit of both. :o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
On Oct 7, 4:28 pm, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > Redden96 wrote: > > On Oct 7, 12:03 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Oct 7, 9:36 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > > >>> The "dumbed down" of Oracle limits the number of CPUs and the size > >>> of the database ... not the features. > >>> Daniel A. Morgan > >>> University of Washington > >>> damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) > > >> Really? So the "dumbed down" version can do RAC and also has the full > >> geo-spatial implementation? > > >> Sorry I don't believe that. Plus being able to take advantage of the > >> number of cores in my box is a feature as is the size of the database. > > >> And that boys and girls confirms the point. > > >> IDS is far superior that even a "dumbed down" version, still kicks > >> butt. > > >> -G > > > If it kicks so much butt, which I personally think it does, why is IBM > > worried about a loss in "potential" revenue when the actual revenues > > could be so much higher. If it were easier for developers and startups > > to get a hold of and use more companies would start to use resulting > > in more licenses being purchased. > > Not if the "dumbed down" version could do everything they wanted. Your statement drives home my point that the concern is with the potential for lost revenue instead of investing in the proliferation of IDS as an easily accessible database platform for folks to start projects with. The version should not offer all of the bells and whistles. I think that the following limitations would suffice. 1 CPU 2 GB of memory 10 GB of disk space 100 concurrent connections No support No Datablades, maybe Allow UDR's and UDF's in order to promote community development Any system that uses such modest resources is not hardly worth collecting revenue on. Many will grow into something that is worth licensing. > > > Someone at IBM is either much smarter than me and see's the flaw in my > > thinking or they're just dumb and can't see the possibilities. They > > are making decisions out of fear instead of trusting the product to > > sell itself if it gets into the right hands. Have some faith in IDS > > and just get it out there. > > It's probably a bit of both. :o) > > -- > Cheers, > Obnoxio the Clown > > http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > And that boys and girls confirms the point. > > IDS is far superior that even a "dumbed down" version, still kicks > butt. Unless one takes a look at that truly marvelous survey asking you whether you want future versions of IDS to contain features that have been available in Oracle and SQL Server for generations. When done kicking butt perhaps it will focus on competing in the marketplace. It is hard to kick butt when you are laying face down on the floor. -- Daniel A. Morgan
DA Morgan wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > >> And that boys and girls confirms the point. >> >> IDS is far superior that even a "dumbed down" version, still kicks >> butt. >> > > Unless one takes a look at that truly marvelous survey asking you > whether you want future versions of IDS to contain features that > have been available in Oracle and SQL Server for generations. > > When done kicking butt perhaps it will focus on competing in the > marketplace. It is hard to kick butt when you are laying face down on > the floor. > I'll defer to your obviously peerless knowledge of such matters. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com