Re: informix market share

Serge Rielau said: > > Mark Townsend wrote: >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> >>> Seems to me that some of your fellow Informix folks here have been >>> reporting their licenses costing them multiples of the Oracle price. >>> >> >> This is what I could never get my head around with the way IBM went >> forward with Informix. >> >> For a billion dollars they got a database that had a great set of >> features (much more than DB2), measurable market share, an extremely >> loyal customer base eager for a white knight (no pun intended), a >> reasonably good partner base, and a dedicated sales force who could >> actually make real money from selling a great product with a good price >> point ...... >> >> >> ..... and they walked away from it, prefering instead to use a >> non-dedicated sales force to push an inferior product by discounting >> and/or bundling heavily. > Nice spin doctoring. Informix was going down fast before IBM stepped in. > Also I strongly disagree with DB2 being inferior. Both products have > different strengths. DB2 for LUW is a multi-purpose DBMS, handling both > BI and OLTP reasonably well; IDS is a superb OLTP engine but without > OLAP, materialized views, scale out, powerful, orthogonal SQL, ... . > While Informix was investing into Illustra and a multi-threaded engine, > IBM executed on "Arrowhead" and implemented the most powerful SQL query > capabilities in the industry with the Starburst compiler. > Also DB2 had a fair set of GUI tooling and client integration which IDS > was missing when IBM purchased Informix. > Different trajectory. Can't say a car is inferior/superior to a > motorcycle. Doesn't work that way. Bloody hell -- talk about spin doctoring. -- 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 sending to informix-list

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Serge Rielau said: > >>Mark Townsend wrote: >> >>>DA Morgan wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Seems to me that some of your fellow Informix folks here have been >>>>reporting their licenses costing them multiples of the Oracle price. >>>> >>> >>>This is what I could never get my head around with the way IBM went >>>forward with Informix. >>> >>>For a billion dollars they got a database that had a great set of >>>features (much more than DB2), measurable market share, an extremely >>>loyal customer base eager for a white knight (no pun intended), a >>>reasonably good partner base, and a dedicated sales force who could >>>actually make real money from selling a great product with a good price >>>point ...... >>> >>> >>>..... and they walked away from it, prefering instead to use a >>>non-dedicated sales force to push an inferior product by discounting >>>and/or bundling heavily. >> >>Nice spin doctoring. Informix was going down fast before IBM stepped in. >>Also I strongly disagree with DB2 being inferior. Both products have >>different strengths. DB2 for LUW is a multi-purpose DBMS, handling both >>BI and OLTP reasonably well; IDS is a superb OLTP engine but without >>OLAP, materialized views, scale out, powerful, orthogonal SQL, ... . >>While Informix was investing into Illustra and a multi-threaded engine, >>IBM executed on "Arrowhead" and implemented the most powerful SQL query >>capabilities in the industry with the Starburst compiler. >>Also DB2 had a fair set of GUI tooling and client integration which IDS >>was missing when IBM purchased Informix. >>Different trajectory. Can't say a car is inferior/superior to a >>motorcycle. Doesn't work that way. > > > Bloody hell -- talk about spin doctoring. > Counter-spin... -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab