Re: Informix versus oracle

Daniel Morgan wrote: > David Williams wrote: > >> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@exxesolutions.com> wrote in message >> news:3EE8E2A6.A64F6EE8@exxesolutions.com... >> > >> > ;-) has meaning. >> > >> > I have current copies of manuals for all commercial RDBMS products. And >> > I >> am >> > unimpressed. >> >> What do you mean? The Informix manuals won awards! >> >> > -- >> > Daniel Morgan >> > http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp >> > damorgan@x.washington.edu >> > (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) >> > >> > > > My mother has won awards. I've won awards. No doubt you and just about > everyone else has. I haven't. > But hand those manuals to someone new with a background in another product > and see how productive they are? Look at all of the questions asked here > at c.d.i. or at any of the other usenet groups about these products. Chances are, none of them have actually RTFMed. Another problem with using the "background in another product" argument, is that vendors (Informix certainly, at least) don't have a manual called "IDS for Oracle weenies". If they did, I'm sure it would kill off this line of attack.:o)

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Daniel Morgan wrote: > > > David Williams wrote: > > > >> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@exxesolutions.com> wrote in message > >> news:3EE8E2A6.A64F6EE8@exxesolutions.com... > >> > > >> > ;-) has meaning. > >> > > >> > I have current copies of manuals for all commercial RDBMS products. And > >> > I > >> am > >> > unimpressed. > >> > >> What do you mean? The Informix manuals won awards! > >> > >> > -- > >> > Daniel Morgan > >> > http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp > >> > damorgan@x.washington.edu > >> > (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) > >> > > >> > > > > > My mother has won awards. I've won awards. No doubt you and just about > > everyone else has. > > I haven't. > > > But hand those manuals to someone new with a background in another product > > and see how productive they are? Look at all of the questions asked here > > at c.d.i. or at any of the other usenet groups about these products. > > Chances are, none of them have actually RTFMed. Another problem with using > the "background in another product" argument, is that vendors (Informix > certainly, at least) don't have a manual called "IDS for Oracle weenies". > If they did, I'm sure it would kill off this line of attack.:o) You appear to make two false assumptions. 1. That someone can not know two or more products well 2. That if someone teaches one they don't know another A fascinating lapse it would appear. In my 34 years in IT (started off on mainframes in 1969) I've had quite a bit of experience with many products: Among them Informix. That I teach Oracle at the University of Washington says more about the lack of interest in Informix than it does about my experience with Informix as an RDBMS your assumptions otherwise not withstanding. I could just as easily teach Informix if students had any interest in it. I was appointed as chairman of the Database SIG of the Washington Software Alliance because of the fact that I am familiar with, and work with, all major RDBMS products, and because I am vendor neutral. While you are standing here in a usenet group beating your chest saying 'what I know is great' you appear to not consider that it is possible that others might know the product equally well, perhaps better, and have a different perspective based on a thorough knowledge of Sybase, DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL, etc. A dose of realism is not a statement of preference. All of these products have strengths and weaknesses. Those that know a product a bit or know only one often feel threatened when someone has a different opinion. Those that know many products can also speak to what is right, and what is wrong with each. I doubt you have more experience with Informix than I do. Though you seem to have jumped to that conclusion with amazing ease. BTW: The speaker at the WSA Database SIG meeting in August will be doing a presentation on Informix and I chose the speaker and topic. How is that possible? Come to the meeting if you are in the area and find out. ;-) -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Daniel Morgan wrote: >> >> > David Williams wrote: >> > >> >> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@exxesolutions.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3EE8E2A6.A64F6EE8@exxesolutions.com... >> >> > >> >> > ;-) has meaning. >> >> > >> >> > I have current copies of manuals for all commercial RDBMS products. >> >> > And I >> >> am >> >> > unimpressed. >> >> >> >> What do you mean? The Informix manuals won awards! >> >> >> > My mother has won awards. I've won awards. No doubt you and just about >> > everyone else has. >> >> I haven't. >> >> > But hand those manuals to someone new with a background in another >> > product and see how productive they are? Look at all of the questions >> > asked here at c.d.i. or at any of the other usenet groups about these >> > products. >> >> Chances are, none of them have actually RTFMed. Another problem with >> using the "background in another product" argument, is that vendors >> (Informix certainly, at least) don't have a manual called "IDS for Oracle >> weenies". If they did, I'm sure it would kill off this line of attack.:o) > > You appear to make two false assumptions. > > 1. That someone can not know two or more products well > 2. That if someone teaches one they don't know another Huh? Where did I say that? You said: "But hand those manuals to someone *new* with a background in another product and see how productive they are?" _You_ used the word new. If you can look at a product for the first time and be an expert in it, you're a better man than I. And if you think _everyone_ can do that, you're a stranger man than I, too. *I* said that most of the time it was because they a) hadn't read the manuals and b) that there generally wasn't a manual called "our product for people used to using some other product." > A fascinating lapse it would appear. If that's fascinating, you need to get out more. Even I don't find that fascinating, and I don't get out at all. Plus, as logical leaps go, it was quite an impressive one. (I weigh more than a duck, so I'm a witch?) > In my 34 years in IT (started off on mainframes in 1969) I've had quite a > bit of experience with many products: Among them Informix. That I teach > Oracle at the > University of Washington says more about the lack of interest in Informix > than it does about my experience with Informix as an RDBMS your > assumptions otherwise not withstanding. I could just as easily teach > Informix if students had any interest in it. Not everybody is as brilliant and well-rounded as you are, clearly. Not to mention able to take as sensible and mature and experienced a view. > I was appointed as chairman of the Database SIG of the Washington Software > Alliance because of the fact that I am familiar with, and work with, all > major RDBMS products, and because I am vendor neutral. While you are > standing here in a usenet group beating your chest saying 'what I know is > great' you appear to not consider that it is possible that others might > know the product equally well, perhaps better, and have a different > perspective based on a thorough knowledge of Sybase, DB2, Oracle, SQL > Server, MySQL, etc. A dose of realism is not a statement of preference. > All of these products have strengths and weaknesses. Those that know a > product a bit or know only one often feel threatened when someone has a > different opinion. Those that know many products can also speak to what is > right, and what is wrong with each. I doubt you have more experience with > Informix than I do. Though you seem to have jumped to that conclusion with > amazing ease. Er, quite. Well, while I'm _hugely_ impressed with your credentials, I'm just some slob who ekes out a living in the lower reaches of the business jungle. I don't have the spare time or the intellectual capacity to be appointed the chairman of the Database SIG of the Romford Software Alliance, so I can't argue with a man of your obviously superior intellect and reason. On the other hand, you are so far up the feeding chain that you didn't notice that I didn't say "what I know is great", I said "the Informix manuals are great and the reason people ask so many beginner level questions here is because they don't read them." I have personal experience of the consequences of not reading the manuals myself, on occasion. As people here are very quick to remind me. What that has to do with people having a different perspective due to a thorough knowledge of Sybase, DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL, etc. is, I must confess to my eternal shame, completely beyond me. Perhaps if they were all that well rounded, they'd know that different products approach problems in different ways and play to different strengths, and should therefore pay more attention to documentation, whether it be official or third party. I know I have. I reckon the Informix manuals can take the Pepsi challenge with any other vendor's docs, and it's just as well, because there isn't exactly a plethora of other stuff out there. As to this daft idea of working with other databases: I, for one, have never ever looked at any database other than Informix, because that would plainly be heresy, and my forays into things like Unify, SQL Server, Oracle and Sybase and (God help me) DB2 were all plainly figments of my limited imagination. The fact that I like Informix and feel comfortable with approaching problems using that technology rather than any other is clearly due to some small-minded pettiness on my part, a lack of vision to address problems in the proper way. > BTW: The speaker at the WSA Database SIG meeting in August will be doing a > presentation on Informix and I chose the speaker and topic. How is that > possible? Come to the meeting if you are in the area and find out. ;-) Thanks, but I'm having a XML-funded lobotomy that week. Or is it my weekly Life Donors Anonymous get together?

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bcinar$j9igi$1@ID-64669.news.dfncis.de... > If that's fascinating, you need to get out more. Even I don't find that > fascinating, and I don't get out at all. Plus, as logical leaps go, it was > quite an impressive one. (I weigh more than a duck, so I'm a witch?) You weigh more than a church, so you're a witch. > As to this daft idea of working with other databases: I, for one, have never > ever looked at any database other than Informix, because that would plainly > be heresy, and my forays into things like Unify, SQL Server, Oracle and > Sybase and (God help me) DB2 were all plainly figments of my limited > imagination. The fact that I like Informix and feel comfortable with > approaching problems using that technology rather than any other is clearly > due to some small-minded pettiness on my part, a lack of vision to address > problems in the proper way. Maybe. The buzzword I keep hearing, not least from the IBM marketeers, is that "The database is a commodity". Well, they're Americans, so I may have missed some subtleties(?), but what I think they're saying is that the quality of most DMBSs these days, presumably even DB2, is such that, for most users with moderately loaded, modearately complex applications, *any* of them will do. Hence the move to position Informix as a niche player, for those who really need its extensibility and/or performance. I'm not saying that this is right or it's wrong (IT's WRONG!! IT'S WRONG!!), but it's becoming a prevailing view amongst analysts and marketing types, and so will dictate the future.

"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote > Maybe. The buzzword I keep hearing, not least from the IBM marketeers, is > that "The database is a commodity". Well, they're Americans, so I may have > missed some subtleties(?), but what I think they're saying is that the > quality of most DMBSs these days, presumably even DB2, is such that, for > most users with moderately loaded, modearately complex applications, *any* > of them will do. This is a view I am increasingly holding day by day. Modern applications are all n tier with so many layers that database is just another layer. With the trend towards using the database only as data retrieval and shifting the business logic towards the middle tier, I see few reasons to pimp for one particular database. I believe caching at the middle tier is going to be the next big thing. That means even less demand on the database. Note that this will work as much against Oracle as against Informix. With Oracle being horrendously expensive and IBM out on a single mission to dethrone Oracle, IT managers will have to really come up with a reason to stick to Oracle and pay thru their nose. ravi

rkusenet wrote: > "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote > > > Maybe. The buzzword I keep hearing, not least from the IBM marketeers, is > > that "The database is a commodity". Well, they're Americans, so I may have > > missed some subtleties(?), but what I think they're saying is that the > > quality of most DMBSs these days, presumably even DB2, is such that, for > > most users with moderately loaded, modearately complex applications, *any* > > of them will do. > > This is a view I am increasingly holding day by day. Modern applications are > all n tier with so many layers that database is just another layer. With the > trend towards using the database only as data retrieval and shifting the business > logic towards the middle tier, I see few reasons to pimp for one particular > database. I believe caching at the middle tier is going to be the next big thing. > That means even less demand on the database. > > Note that this will work as much against Oracle as against Informix. With > Oracle being horrendously expensive and IBM out on a single mission to dethrone > Oracle, IT managers will have to really come up with a reason to stick to Oracle > and pay thru their nose. > > ravi I agree with all that you said with one exception. With the release of Oracle 10i (or whatever they call it) expect to see a pricing change to increase competitiveness. Larry's got enough cash to price his product any way he wishes. Expect him to do so. And do notice 9iAS. He is already where you're going. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)