Smoke and mirrors...

While some IBM insiders are saying that "things are changing but we can't really talk about it...", here's a simple fact. IBM on 9/15 released two new benchmarks. A TPC-C and TPC-E on their new(er) hardware and Microsoft SQL Server. Seems that no one from IM Is trying to get through to their hardware buddies about IDS. While there are some legitimate "excuses" like, 'I slept with the hardware exec's wife and now he's not returning my calls...', or , "I didn't sleep with his wife, but he wants to sleep with me, so I'm not returning his calls ..." Well you get the idea. The hard fact is that IBM isn't selling IDS. Oh sure there's a rumor about DB2 IT Specialists now getting incented to get IDS certified. But that costs money. How about an easier incentive. Learn it or lose their jobs. After all, as DA Maroon points out, there aren't a lot of DB2 distributed jobs out there. And of course these IT Specialists aren't DBAs. Does anyone remember Charlie Ills? He gave a memorable speech at the first eBU we (Informix Heritage NA) attended. "You have one qtr to perform, or your put on propation for the second qtr. Then you're gone). Oh I forgot. Most of the heritage Informixers who read this stuff weren't in sales.... But getting back on point. IBM still runs benchmarks. They have things set up. You're going to tell me that Ambush who's saving tonnes of money by not "marketing" or having a Campus program for IDS... can't afford to release a couple of worthless gits from Lenexa or L3 support, to do a benchmark or two? Naw. they can port IDS to a PS3, but they can't run a benchmark. One's a cool hack. the other? Business collateral fodder. Now which is going to help drive sales? (Note: The PS3 hack isn't supported so they can't sell it.) -G

Gumby, Do you ( or anyone ) know factually how well IDS is doing in the market? I'd like to know if it is really doing well or if it is really not selling at all. Some facts please, from you or anyone. I find many of the IDS feature requests troubling in light of the fact that even MySQL has had for some time many of features that the IDS survey is requesting. Same for Oracle. I am in the process of going through some of my own tests to see if I can do with IDS what can be done with Oracle and/or MySQL. -ID- Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > While some IBM insiders are saying that "things are changing but we > can't really talk about it...", here's a simple fact. > > IBM on 9/15 released two new benchmarks. A TPC-C and TPC-E on their > new(er) hardware and Microsoft SQL Server. > > Seems that no one from IM Is trying to get through to their hardware > buddies about IDS. > > While there are some legitimate "excuses" like, 'I slept with the > hardware exec's wife and now he's not returning my calls...', or , "I > didn't sleep with his wife, but he wants to sleep with me, so I'm not > returning his calls ..." > > Well you get the idea. > > The hard fact is that IBM isn't selling IDS. Oh sure there's a rumor > about DB2 IT Specialists now getting incented to get IDS certified. > But that costs money. How about an easier incentive. Learn it or lose > their jobs. After all, as DA Maroon points out, there aren't a lot of > DB2 distributed jobs out there. And of course these IT Specialists > aren't DBAs. > > Does anyone remember Charlie Ills? He gave a memorable speech at the > first eBU we (Informix Heritage NA) attended. "You have one qtr to > perform, or your put on propation for the second qtr. Then you're > gone). > > Oh I forgot. Most of the heritage Informixers who read this stuff > weren't in sales.... > > But getting back on point. IBM still runs benchmarks. They have things > set up. You're going to tell me that Ambush who's saving tonnes of > money by not "marketing" or having a Campus program for IDS... can't > afford to release a couple of worthless gits from Lenexa or L3 > support, to do a benchmark or two? > > Naw. they can port IDS to a PS3, but they can't run a benchmark. One's > a cool hack. the other? Business collateral fodder. Now which is going > to help drive sales? (Note: The PS3 hack isn't supported so they can't > sell it.) > > -G

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > While some IBM insiders are saying that "things are changing but we > can't really talk about it...", here's a simple fact. > > IBM on 9/15 released two new benchmarks. A TPC-C and TPC-E on their > new(er) hardware and Microsoft SQL Server. > > Seems that no one from IM Is trying to get through to their hardware > buddies about IDS. > > While there are some legitimate "excuses" like, 'I slept with the > hardware exec's wife and now he's not returning my calls...', or , "I > didn't sleep with his wife, but he wants to sleep with me, so I'm not > returning his calls ..." > > Well you get the idea. > > The hard fact is that IBM isn't selling IDS. Oh sure there's a rumor > about DB2 IT Specialists now getting incented to get IDS certified. > But that costs money. How about an easier incentive. Learn it or lose > their jobs. After all, as DA Maroon points out, there aren't a lot of > DB2 distributed jobs out there. And of course these IT Specialists > aren't DBAs. > > Does anyone remember Charlie Ills? He gave a memorable speech at the > first eBU we (Informix Heritage NA) attended. "You have one qtr to > perform, or your put on propation for the second qtr. Then you're > gone). > > Oh I forgot. Most of the heritage Informixers who read this stuff > weren't in sales.... > > But getting back on point. IBM still runs benchmarks. They have things > set up. You're going to tell me that Ambush who's saving tonnes of > money by not "marketing" or having a Campus program for IDS... can't > afford to release a couple of worthless gits from Lenexa or L3 > support, to do a benchmark or two? > > Naw. they can port IDS to a PS3, but they can't run a benchmark. One's > a cool hack. the other? Business collateral fodder. Now which is going > to help drive sales? (Note: The PS3 hack isn't supported so they can't > sell it.) > > Have you ever done an audited benchmark? -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

InDeep wrote: > Gumby, > > Do you ( or anyone ) know factually how well IDS is doing in the market? > > I'd like to know if it is really doing well or if it is really not > selling at all. Some facts please, from you or anyone. Actually some of us do have a reasonably good idea. Here's how you can determine it for yourself. Lets assume an IT shop decides to begin using product "A" and has not previously used it. What do they need to do? 1. Purchase the software licenses (unpublished information, information covered by NDA) 2. Recruit technical staff with experience using product "A" (published information readily accessible to anyone) Google, dice.com, hotjobs.com, monster.com ... you do the math. > I find many of the IDS feature requests troubling in light of the fact > that even MySQL has had for some time many of features that the IDS > survey is requesting. Same for Oracle. Same for Microsoft's SQL Server. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> Gumby, >> >> Do you ( or anyone ) know factually how well IDS is doing in the market? >> >> I'd like to know if it is really doing well or if it is really not >> selling at all. Some facts please, from you or anyone. > > Actually some of us do have a reasonably good idea. Here's how > you can determine it for yourself. > > Lets assume an IT shop decides to begin using product "A" and > has not previously used it. What do they need to do? > > 1. Purchase the software licenses > (unpublished information, information covered by NDA) > > 2. Recruit technical staff with experience using product "A" > (published information readily accessible to anyone) > > Google, dice.com, hotjobs.com, monster.com ... you do the math. > >> I find many of the IDS feature requests troubling in light of the fact >> that even MySQL has had for some time many of features that the IDS >> survey is requesting. Same for Oracle. > > Same for Microsoft's SQL Server. I want to exclude SQL-Server, but you're right, Microsoft is starting up the buzz machine with the latest release of SQL-Server. Even SQL-Server has benchmarks. But back to the point, is there anyone from IBM that can say definitively that IDS is really doing well in the market with FACTS? IDS has some really great features, and Daniel, with all fairness to IDS vs Oracle, at least you can run IDS in a VM, something Oracle does NOT support. Oracle is emerging into the VM space, but it is Oracles' own recommendations not to run it in a VM, and they do not support VM usage, despite their own VM offerings--which I find puzzling. The IDS footprint is so small compared to Oracle that I'm curious why IBM is not making more noise about IDS in VMs. IDS has a real opportunity here in the VM space, yet we hear nothing. Very puzzling. I have IDS running in my Linux VM on my Mac, and IDS running on my Mac natively, so I know this is a huge opportunity that appears to have been left on the table. Surely there should be some kind of marketing buzz here with VMs. Another thing I find puzzling is why so many IBM Informix employees don't offer up their own blogs and interest in the product. I see a few Informix individuals from Informix 1.0 but where are all the rest of IBM/Informix? Why are there not more blogs and publications and efforts to get IDS out there from Informix people? Seems very disproportionate to the number of people that work on the product. Maybe they have only 1 toe in the water and really don't give a shit. -ID-

On Oct 9, 10:55 am, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > Gumby, > > Do you ( or anyone ) know factually how well IDS is doing in the market? > > I'd like to know if it is really doing well or if it is really not > selling at all.  Some facts please, from you or anyone. > There are no hard facts. Yes IBM does know the numbers. No they aren't telling anyone anything, except a few people who hear rumors.

On Oct 9, 11:42 am, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > While some IBM insiders are saying that "things are changing but we > > can't really talk about it...", here's a simple fact. > > > IBM on 9/15 released two new benchmarks. A TPC-C and TPC-E on their > > new(er) hardware and Microsoft SQL Server. > > > Seems that no one from IM Is trying to get through to their hardware > > buddies about IDS. > > > While there are some legitimate "excuses" like, 'I slept with the > > hardware exec's wife and now he's not returning my calls...', or , "I > > didn't sleep with his wife, but he wants to sleep with me, so I'm not > > returning his calls ..." > > > Well you get the idea. > > > The hard fact is that IBM isn't selling IDS. Oh sure there's a rumor > > about DB2 IT Specialists now getting incented to get IDS certified. > > But that costs money. How about an easier incentive. Learn it or lose > > their jobs. After all, as DA Maroon points out, there aren't a lot of > > DB2 distributed jobs out there. And of course these IT Specialists > > aren't DBAs. > > > Does anyone remember Charlie Ills? He gave a memorable speech at the > > first eBU we (Informix Heritage NA) attended. "You have one qtr to > > perform, or your put on propation for the second qtr. Then you're > > gone). > > > Oh I forgot. Most of the heritage Informixers who read this stuff > > weren't in sales.... > > > But getting back on point. IBM still runs benchmarks. They have things > > set up. You're going to tell me that Ambush who's saving tonnes of > > money by not "marketing" or having a Campus program for IDS... can't > > afford to release a couple of worthless gits from Lenexa or L3 > > support, to do a benchmark or two? > > > Naw. they can port IDS to a PS3, but they can't run a benchmark. One's > > a cool hack. the other? Business collateral fodder. Now which is going > > to help drive sales? (Note: The PS3 hack isn't supported so they can't > > sell it.) > > Have you ever done an audited benchmark? > Nope, just an unaudited one for a customer where I had to sign a couple of NDAs with the companies involved because they didn't want the numbers released to the public. ;-) And before you start backpedaling for IBM, they've had two+ years to do a benchmark. Or actually several benchmarks. After all, if they can set up a box to do a TPC-C and TPC-E benchmark on Microsoft, you can't actually pretend that setting up IDS on the same platform isn't possible. I mean heck... Don't we always talk about how easy IDS is to set up, configure and administer? Not to mention that they have said machines set up for Sybase and DB2 benchmarks as well. So there really isn't any excuses. Oh wait I forgot. The head of the IM dept for benchmarking is off for the holidays today. -G

On Oct 9, 12:21 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > InDeep wrote: > > Gumby, > > > Do you ( or anyone ) know factually how well IDS is doing in the market? > > > I'd like to know if it is really doing well or if it is really not > > selling at all.  Some facts please, from you or anyone. > > Actually some of us do have a reasonably good idea. Here's how > you can determine it for yourself. > YAH-AWN! Boring Sidney, fscking Boring! Look daniel, no offense but don't you get it? A certain large customer of IDS in AR can add 100's of installations of IDS in their stores and not increase their IDS support staff. Same too for other large installs. Cisco can sell a heck of a lot of kit with IDS embedded, and we'll never know how much kit was shipped because the support calls go to Cisco and not IBM. Same to for Moto and Siemens Medical. Thats all off our radar. The true sad fact that inspite of Janet's best laid plans where she convinced some of the ISVs that IDS was going away and DB2 was the way to go, IDS is still selling. No wait, my bad. Killing off IDS was only Janet's second ill conceived plan. DB2 distributed was her first. Sorry Serge, I know RDBMSs and Sir, DB2 is no IDS. ;-) -G

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 9, 11:42 am, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> >>> While some IBM insiders are saying that "things are changing but we >>> can't really talk about it...", here's a simple fact. >>> >>> IBM on 9/15 released two new benchmarks. A TPC-C and TPC-E on their >>> new(er) hardware and Microsoft SQL Server. >>> >>> Seems that no one from IM Is trying to get through to their hardware >>> buddies about IDS. >>> >>> While there are some legitimate "excuses" like, 'I slept with the >>> hardware exec's wife and now he's not returning my calls...', or , "I >>> didn't sleep with his wife, but he wants to sleep with me, so I'm not >>> returning his calls ..." >>> >>> Well you get the idea. >>> >>> The hard fact is that IBM isn't selling IDS. Oh sure there's a rumor >>> about DB2 IT Specialists now getting incented to get IDS certified. >>> But that costs money. How about an easier incentive. Learn it or lose >>> their jobs. After all, as DA Maroon points out, there aren't a lot of >>> DB2 distributed jobs out there. And of course these IT Specialists >>> aren't DBAs. >>> >>> Does anyone remember Charlie Ills? He gave a memorable speech at the >>> first eBU we (Informix Heritage NA) attended. "You have one qtr to >>> perform, or your put on propation for the second qtr. Then you're >>> gone). >>> >>> Oh I forgot. Most of the heritage Informixers who read this stuff >>> weren't in sales.... >>> >>> But getting back on point. IBM still runs benchmarks. They have things >>> set up. You're going to tell me that Ambush who's saving tonnes of >>> money by not "marketing" or having a Campus program for IDS... can't >>> afford to release a couple of worthless gits from Lenexa or L3 >>> support, to do a benchmark or two? >>> >>> Naw. they can port IDS to a PS3, but they can't run a benchmark. One's >>> a cool hack. the other? Business collateral fodder. Now which is going >>> to help drive sales? (Note: The PS3 hack isn't supported so they can't >>> sell it.) >>> >> Have you ever done an audited benchmark? >> >> > > Nope, just an unaudited one for a customer where I had to sign a > couple of NDAs with the companies involved because they didn't want > the numbers released to the public. ;-) > So you've no idea whatsoever what is involved? > And before you start backpedaling for IBM, they've had two+ years to > do a benchmark. Or actually several benchmarks. After all, if they can > I think you're forgetting that I've been voluble in my support for a benchmark for years now. I am just as keen as you are to see one done. But there is one difference: I'm prepared to give the new management team a chance to deliver. I've spoken to some of them, I think they know what that needs to be done and they know that the old way wasn't working. I'll give them some time before I start carping. On the other hand, you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how IBM should have done things years ago and how they're not doing what they are doing the right way and how stupid everyone in IBM is, except you. I hear interesting rumours coming from with IBM. A new Informix book has been published. (I do hope all the people banging on about the lack of IDS books have had the decency to go and buy it! :o) It sounds like IDS on Campus is happening, albeit maybe not as everyone would want it to happen. I'd love to see IBM make a company-wide order that every employee should a) learn IDS and b) teach at a local university at IBM's expense, but I accept that there is little incentive for IBM to spend that much money on a product which probably doesn't even contribute 1% of its total revenue. It looks like IBM via "Ambush" and his team are starting to take Informix seriously. It seems like things are looking up and people are trying to undo 7 lean years. Yeah, I'm unhappy that it's not happened overnight and I'm sure that maybe some things aren't being done in the absolute best way possible. But at least it looks to me like they're starting to get done one tiny step at a time. There is only one thing IBM (and any other business) listens to: the rustling of money. Any requests that go along with that sound are more favourably received than all the bitching Usenet can buy. So, the next time your salesman comes round to do a deal, tell him you want to see an Informix TPC benchmark first. Or some advertising. Or both. With the cheque dangling in front of him. Perhaps if the sales managers all start getting the same complaints, they'll force the business to come up with some money for it. Moaning on Usenet might make *you* feel better, but it doesn't affect anything and it's extremely tiring for the rest of us. > set up a box to do a TPC-C and TPC-E benchmark on Microsoft, you can't > actually pretend that setting up IDS on the same platform isn't > possible. I mean heck... Don't we always talk ab

InDeep wrote: > > > DA Morgan wrote: >> InDeep wrote: >>> Gumby, >>> >>> Do you ( or anyone ) know factually how well IDS is doing in the market? >>> >>> I'd like to know if it is really doing well or if it is really not >>> selling at all. Some facts please, from you or anyone. >> >> Actually some of us do have a reasonably good idea. Here's how >> you can determine it for yourself. >> >> Lets assume an IT shop decides to begin using product "A" and >> has not previously used it. What do they need to do? >> >> 1. Purchase the software licenses >> (unpublished information, information covered by NDA) >> >> 2. Recruit technical staff with experience using product "A" >> (published information readily accessible to anyone) >> >> Google, dice.com, hotjobs.com, monster.com ... you do the math. >> >>> I find many of the IDS feature requests troubling in light of the fact >>> that even MySQL has had for some time many of features that the IDS >>> survey is requesting. Same for Oracle. >> >> Same for Microsoft's SQL Server. > > I want to exclude SQL-Server, but you're right, Microsoft is starting up > the buzz > machine with the latest release of SQL-Server. Even SQL-Server has > benchmarks. > > But back to the point, is there anyone from IBM that can say > definitively that > IDS is really doing well in the market with FACTS? > > IDS has some really great features, and Daniel, with all fairness to IDS vs > Oracle, at least you can run IDS in a VM, something Oracle does NOT > support. Where did you hear that? The reason I ask is that it is not true. Oracle does not support EMC's VM but they absolutely support their own and they absolutely support IBM's zVM. > Maybe they have only 1 toe in the water and really don't give a shit. Or maybe, like so many others, they are jsut moving on. Most of the former Informix employees I know are currently with SAP. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 9, 10:55 am, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: >> Gumby, >> >> Do you ( or anyone ) know factually how well IDS is doing in the market? >> >> I'd like to know if it is really doing well or if it is really not >> selling at all. Some facts please, from you or anyone. >> > LOOP > There are no hard facts. Keep this in mind as you read on. > Yes IBM does know the numbers. Unquestionably. > No they aren't telling anyone anything, except a few people who hear > rumors. Rumors: Rumors as opposed to facts Ian. They hear rumors and you are repeating those rumors as though they are facts. > From what I have heard, the number are good. Pretty good in fact. And > that's the problem. What you heard are unsubstantiated rumors as you have already acknowledged. END LOOP; COMMIT; In the future just try saying "I don't know." It may not be as pleasant but it is the fact most in evidence. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Look daniel, no offense but don't you get it? > > A certain large customer of IDS in AR can add 100's of installations > of IDS in their stores and not increase their IDS support staff. > Same too for other large installs. That wasn't the point of the statement. The point was penetration into companies that don't already use the product. Selling more licenses into an existing customer doesn't expand the marketplace or the marketshare. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> >> IDS has some really great features, and Daniel, with all fairness to >> IDS vs >> Oracle, at least you can run IDS in a VM, something Oracle does NOT >> support. > > Where did you hear that? The reason I ask is that it is not true. Say it ain't so Joe! But we were told point blank that not only would we NOT be supported on VMWare, we would not be supported on Oracles' own VM--this is assuming you can get it to work on Oracles' own VM. We _did_ get it to work--at least the App and CM portions of Oracle Applications, _on VMware_, but were told not to even waste our time putting the database server on a VMWare VM or any other VM. This is coming from real experience, not a bunch of here-say chit chat. As you are all to aware, a VMware server would melt under Oracle database load, it just ain't gonna work. We actually were at war with the Infosys Oracle people who didn't even want the App and CM tier on a VM, but we sneaked it on, and it's been running fine, albeit completely UNSUPPORTED. The database is on real iron as we speak. It's also about certification for Oracle applications. Big shops with big bux want to mitigate their risk, so they will only want to run certified apps on supported platforms. Why? Because they can. They've already capitulated to Oracle basically hooking up a firehose to their bank acct and running a pump to suck out the cash, so why not have certified apps and database platforms. Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to help attach the hose, as long as I can get a piece of the action. *<8o) > Oracle does not support EMC's VM but they absolutely support their > own and they absolutely support IBM's zVM. > See above... Back to IDS, playing with the IDS Dev Edition I've found some work needs to be done in the documentation, but other than that IDS is an old friend, almost seems like a homeless person I've allowed to stay in my home. It seems to run fine in a VM, doesn't seem to need egregious amounts of memory--even though it is restricted to 1GB Max. My VMware VM is set to 512 MB for the whole dang VM, and Informix is puttering along just fine using a total of I think it looks like 8MB of shared memory. Over on my workstation with 8GB of RAM the same situation, almost a whopping 40MB for IDS. IDS has some potential, but until we see more from IBM and less from people like me, it ain't goin anywhere.

On Oct 9, 4:48 pm, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > > >> Have you ever done an audited benchmark? > > > Nope, just an unaudited one for a customer where I had to sign a > > couple of NDAs with the companies involved because they didn't want > > the numbers released to the public. ;-) > > So you've no idea whatsoever what is involved? > No didn't say that. Just that there was no official audit being performed by an outside auditor. Its like saying just because I've never fired an automatic weapon, doesn't mean I don't know how to fire an automatic weapon. (In the states unless you have a special license, you can't legally own an automatic weapon. ) And why would I want an M60 ? I'd rather have a match grade M1A1 or the new M110. ;-) > > And before you start backpedaling for IBM, they've had two+ years to > > do a benchmark. Or actually several benchmarks. After all, if they can > > I think you're forgetting that I've been voluble in my support for a > benchmark for years now. I am just as keen as you are to see one done. > But there is one difference: I'm prepared to give the new management > team a chance to deliver. I've spoken to some of them, I think they know > what that needs to be done and they know that the old way wasn't > working. I'll give them some time before I start carping. > New management team? Ambush? He's new? I could have thought he's been around for a couple of years now. Jerry K? He's been around for quite some time. Alyse P? I guess she's now WW sales for IM, a slight promotion over her old role as WW sales for IDS. Cathy Elliot? Oh wait, you must mean that new "BUE" from Lotus? The funny thing was that Jerry and others mentioned a benchmark many, many moons ago. They said that they're going to skip the TPC-C and go straight for the TPC-E jugular. BTW, the numbers that we see today are "unaudited". That means that they are published and then they get audited by TPC.org So the need to wait for auditing is hogwash. > On the other hand, you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on [SNIP} > about how IBM should have done things years ago and how they're not > doing what they are doing the right way and how stupid everyone in IBM > is, except you. Well no. I never said that. But using your logic, if you have a lot of smurt people who for some reason can't get the job done, then you either have slackers or people who can't be trusted to do what they say they are going to do. And yeah, I tend to repeat myself. It seems that there are a couple of people out there who have thick skulls and it takes a bit of repeating to get some very simple ideas through their thick head. I harp on the fact that in the midwest, there are Informix customers that are not getting good support. And that the local sales teams can't sell the product so unless the customer is asking for the product, they don't sell it. (They call on a partner to sell it for them.) This is just as bad as the "lead with DB2" mantra that Janet had. IDS is being presented as this old dusty product that's been sitting on the shelf. At the same time, by harping on these points it calls to attention that IBM isn't fixing the problem. > > I hear interesting rumours coming from with IBM. A new Informix book has > been published. (I do hope all the people banging on about the lack of > IDS books have had the decency to go and buy it! :o) It sounds like IDS > on Campus is happening, albeit maybe not as everyone would want it to > happen. I'd love to see IBM make a company-wide order that every > employee should a) learn IDS and b) teach at a local university at IBM's > expense, but I accept that there is little incentive for IBM to spend > that much money on a product which probably doesn't even contribute 1% > of its total revenue. It looks like IBM via "Ambush" and his team are > starting to take Informix seriously. It seems like things are looking up > and people are trying to undo 7 lean years. Yeah, I'm unhappy that it's > not happened overnight and I'm sure that maybe some things aren't being > done in the absolute best way possible. But at least it looks to me like > they're starting to get done one tiny step at a time. > Buy a book just to sit on my shelf? LOL. Sorry don't do that. I actually read the books I buy. But the more interesting thing is how many copies of the book sells. I will say one thing yet again. Ambush is "starting" to take IDS seriously. And how long has he been there? Now put down that blue liquid and step away from the table. > There is only one thing IBM (and any other business) listens to: the > rustling of money. Any requests that go along with that sound are more > favourably received than all the bitching Usenet can buy. So, the next > time your salesman comes round to do a deal, tell him you want to see an > Informix TPC benchmark first. Or some advertising. Or both. With the > cheque dangling in front of him. Perhaps if the sales managers all start > getting the same complaints, they'll force the business to come up with > some money for it. > > Moaning on Usenet might make *you* feel better, but it doesn't affect > anything and it's extremely tiring for the rest of us. > > > set up a box to do a TPC-C and TPC-E benchmark on Microsoft, you can't > > actually pretend that setting up IDS on the same platform isn't > > possible. I mean heck... Don't we always talk about how easy IDS is to > > set up, configure and administer? > > Well, Gumby, if it's that easy, why don't you do it? You were > cross-matrixed to P&O with a direct report into Larry Ellison, surely > you can make it happen! I'm not such a clever person, and I found even > the most trivial of benchmarks really difficult and time consuming. I > found that lots of my standard tuning techniques just don't work in the > rarified atmosphere of TPC benchmarks. But hey! What do I know? > > > Not to mention that they have said machines set up for Sybase and DB2 > > benchmarks as well. > > Can we please just put this nonsense to bed: I can't believe that > someone who was cross-matrixed to S&M and wiped all that paper can't see > that IBM hardware and IBM software are two distinct businesses that > interact no better or more frequently than do Sun and Microsoft software > (ipse dixit.) Why do you think that the tin guys even know IDS exists? > More importantly, why would the tin guys lift a finger to help a > benchmark for a product that isn't their problem in any way, shape or > form? Especially if that software is going to mean they sell less tin? > Maybe you'd like to get all the IBM hardware presales guys certified on > IDS11 as well? > > > So there really isn't any excuses. > > "Aren't." > > > Oh wait I forgot. > > The head of the IM dept for benchmarking is off for the holidays > > today. > > Perhaps you should apply for his job. It's a sinecure, after all. > > -- > Cheers, > Obnoxio the Clown > > http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

On Oct 9, 5:32 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: MIT; > > In the future just try saying "I don't know." It may not be as pleasant > but it is the fact most in evidence. > -- What makes you think I don't know? I could know, but I could be under an NDA that prohibits me from talking about it. Do you know Oracle's license numbers? Would you like to? ;-) -G

InDeep wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> InDeep wrote: >>> >>> IDS has some really great features, and Daniel, with all fairness to >>> IDS vs >>> Oracle, at least you can run IDS in a VM, something Oracle does NOT >>> support. >> >> Where did you hear that? The reason I ask is that it is not true. > > Say it ain't so Joe! But we were told point blank that not only would we > NOT be supported on VMWare, we would not be supported on Oracles' own > VM True with VMWare ... not true with Oracle's VM or IBM's VM. http://blogs.oracle.com/wim/2008/09/oracle_vm_212.html -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> DA Morgan wrote: >>> InDeep wrote: >>>> >>>> IDS has some really great features, and Daniel, with all fairness to >>>> IDS vs >>>> Oracle, at least you can run IDS in a VM, something Oracle does NOT >>>> support. >>> >>> Where did you hear that? The reason I ask is that it is not true. >> >> Say it ain't so Joe! But we were told point blank that not only would we >> NOT be supported on VMWare, we would not be supported on Oracles' own >> VM > > True with VMWare ... not true with Oracle's VM or IBM's VM. > http://blogs.oracle.com/wim/2008/09/oracle_vm_212.html This article was just released on September 25, 2008. I have been speaking from this past year, and certainly, Oracles' VM, while cool, is still a risky venture for Oracle database servers. The article didn't say a word about Oracle Applications running on their own VM, or their app-server, and/or when they would be supported. Like I said, without support even the most ardent Oracle nut will have to wait. I'm curious how the database server will work as a VM, since oracle typically consumes the box it is on. To Oracles' credit at least they are using a PVM and not a VMware-style VM. The para-virtualization would seem the only way Oracle could even consider using a VM. PVM is typically faster and more responsive than a non-PVM. ( Parallels is a PVM ) I love this quote from Mike Ault, Oracle DBA Made Simple, RampantTechPress: "Oracle is a resource intensive database system. The more memory, CPU and disk resources you can provide Oracle, the better it performs. Resource planning with Oracle becomes more a game of "how much can we afford to buy" instead of "what is the minimum configuration". A minimally configured Oracle server will not function in an efficient manner." ( I have this quote pasted on my office wall. *<8o) Oracles' VM is still too new, it will require some testing, but thanks for the info. I'll pass it along to the team. In the meantime I'm spending a little time with Informix, the homeless person of DBs. ( "Brother can you spare a server?" *<8o)