Re: Why you can't trust IBM when it comes to committing to Informix.

On 22 Mrz., 14:14, "Neil Truby" <neil.tr...@ardenta.com> wrote: > <dcrunch...@aim.com> wrote in messagenews:fs2ut1013m8@drn.newsguy.com... > > Neil Truby says... > > >>The reason why the messages about IDS > >>continues to lack clarity stems from IBM's reluctance to diminish DB2, and > >>this presumably comes from at or near the top. > > > Pop quiz: Name one software company which markets/promotes two > > products doing the same thing. > > Well, there are literally hundreds. Outside IT, Diaego promotes mutiple > brands of wine, beer and spirits in every category without apparent > discomfort. Record labels promote multiple artists without evidently > suffering guilt pangs about having to choose one over another. Within IT, > how about Verisign, who offer both their own and their (cheaper) subsiduary > Thawte's SSL certificates? > > But the premise of your question is wrong in any case because, as Eric > points out, ""IDS neither competes with nor represents an alternative to > DB2. Rather, IDS represents an embeddable transaction-oriented RDBMS > featuring valuable capabilities that distinguish it from DB2 in a > significant way." ! > > Eric's other idea, bringing up direct questions to the senior IBM execs > about "Which is your premier OLTP database product", would be a waste of > time. These people are far too smart to fall into the trap of giving a > direct answer to suchg a question. There seems to be a feeling abroad on > this newsgroup that IBM execs are stupid and are somehow missing the > glaringly obvious. Nothing could be futher from ther truth. Neil, I agree with you and I never said that IBM execs are stupid. But on the other side they should not think that the Informix community isn't realizing what is really happening. The whole IM sales organisation is still only DB2 focussed (exception: Ex-Informixer's) and IBM does much too little to change this. The result is that they loose more and more business to the competition. I don't know if the "direct questions to the IBM execs" approach is the right one. But the drawbacks need to be transported to the IBM execs, so that they might be able to take corrective actions and we need to control if something has changed 6-12 months later. Discussing those issues on c.d.i. only doesn't really help from my point of view. If someone knows a more promising way, I'm happy to support it.