RE: IIUG Board election results

> From: indeep@indeep.com> > I think it could be argued that posting sober is almost as dangerous> as posting 'un-sober'. I like the yippie approach, it allows less alcohol> over time and yet achieves the same result.> > But back to your original posting about the IIUG. The IIUG> is a hybrid organization, or should I say hydra organization, having two> or more main goals in its charter, depending on where you stand. If you're> at IBM, it's a low-cost ( read cheap ) way to market to the installed base> of users of a product. If you're an IIUG member, you could have the impression> that the IIUG is there to represent end-user interests. If you're a VAR it's> yet another organization to market into and out of. The point is, while you> might argue your view, in the grand scheme of things the people that really> care about any of it are the ones with the purse strings, and as long as they> are happy, nothing you say will matter. From the end-user perspective, you> have almost no access to what's really going on other than outbound communications> about monthly events. So complaining about things in a public forum is almost> pointless unless you can bring some facts to the table and not gossip. Even> if you have facts you had better be very prepared to back them up, and I'd be> very cautious about complaining publicaly, especially when most of the people> you will reach will be able to do little if anything to help. Your complaints> my friend are simply the tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear> it fall. Or if it were actually heard, there are other sounds of money making> more noise, and thus making your complaint even more irrelevant. If you want> to be more effective, I'd say post a solution and generate some grass roots> momentum. It's harder than you think, and will consume most if not all of> your time.> I would have used a different example, but yes, you're essentially right. Think of the IIUG as a many faceted jewel. From different perspectives, it has a different look. I think we all agree that the IIUG serves as a tool. Something that if we understand the positions of all parties involved, it can serve a usefull purpose. Use the IIUG as a way to feed the grassroots development. The IIUG can be an effective way to seed the market with copies of IDS on Linux and Mac platforms. It can be a way to make marketing statements that could not be made directly by IBM because of IBM's internal/infernal marketing rules. As to grass roots marketing, you're seeing a tag line regarding IBM's dirty little secret. That idea came from somewhere. ;-) IDS is actually one of the IT industry's dirty little secrets. Its sort of like that old joke about mopeds. They're fun to ride but you don't want your friends to see you riding one... ;-) Why can't/won't IBM get Wal* to be a reference account? Why cant/won't IBM get Cisco to be a reference account... (You can place the name of half a dozen well respected companies in many different markets around the world...) The reason I don't want to talk about any grassroots campaign is that I don't get the impression that IBM is serious about IDS. Sure I've heard the numbers and rumors, but that doesn't mean a lot. The current head of IM is getting his ticket punched. When he leaves, what's his legacy? I'll put it in more specifc terms.... In the Central Region, how many IM IT specialists are there? What percentage of those specialists are certified on DB2? What percentage of those specialists are certified on IDS? (10 or 11). I made a recommendation to a certain IBM exec about getting the FLMs of the IT Specialists to get it in their PBCs that they would have to increase the number of IDS certified IT Specialists in their team. To the best of my knowledge that didn't happen. For those of you outside of IBM, you wouldn't understand the importance. For those of you in the lab, you might grok it. But if you're an exec in S&D, you'll understand the motivating factor. Oh there's more. Like I said, the problem is in knowing certain things, you have to be careful what you say because some things are not meant for public consumption.... I do agree that we should concentrate on the positives, rather than some dimwitted twit making accusations against Stuart and the IIUG. I agree that Stuart is no angel, but I didn't witness anything that was in any way illicit or illegal. But hey! What do I know? Clearly more than I can say.... :-) -G _________________________________________________________________ Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > I think we all agree that the IIUG serves as a tool. Something that if > we understand the positions of all parties involved, it can serve a > usefull purpose. > The IIUG is also full of people that are tools. :-) Sorry I couldn't resist. > Use the IIUG as a way to feed the grassroots development. The IIUG can > be an effective way to seed the market with copies of IDS on Linux and > Mac platforms. It can be a way to make marketing statements that could > not be made directly by IBM because of IBM's internal/infernal marketing > rules. > IBM isn't interested in grass roots, it doesn't fit their company culture. > As to grass roots marketing, you're seeing a tag line regarding IBM's > dirty little secret. That idea came from somewhere. ;-) IDS is actually > one of the IT industry's dirty little secrets. Its sort of like that old > joke about mopeds. They're fun to ride but you don't want your friends > to see you riding one... ;-) Why can't/won't IBM get Wal* to be a > reference account? Why cant/won't IBM get Cisco to be a reference > account... (You can place the name of half a dozen well respected > companies in many different markets around the world...) > IBM isn't interested in doing anything that isn't driven from the top down. > The reason I don't want to talk about any grassroots campaign is that I > don't get the impression that IBM is serious about IDS. Sure I've heard > the numbers and rumors, but that doesn't mean a lot. The current head of > IM is getting his ticket punched. When he leaves, what's his legacy? > IBM isn't interested in anything that isn't indexed off of their core stack. It will confuse investors, analysts, and their marketing department. Their marketing is all about selling to existing accounts. They don't know how and don't want to know how to sell into new markets. IDS is for all intents and purposes a new product, simply because there's a whole new generation of tech professionals that have never even heard of Informix. IBM can't sell into new markets thusly they can't sell IDS. They _can_ sell DB2 because this is something they can sell into existing accounts. If the account is already using IDS, they can sell IDS upgrades into it, but new accounts, new developers, this is something outside their competency. Look at the average age of an IBM'er, are there any people under 30 at IBM? > I'll put it in more specifc terms.... In the Central Region, how many IM > IT specialists are there? What percentage of those specialists are > certified on DB2? What percentage of those specialists are certified on > IDS? (10 or 11). > No need to certify yourself on something that doesn't have a market presence. > I made a recommendation to a certain IBM exec about getting the FLMs of > the IT Specialists to get it in their PBCs that they would have to > increase the number of IDS certified IT Specialists in their team. To > the best of my knowledge that didn't happen. For those of you outside > of IBM, you wouldn't understand the importance. For those of you in the > lab, you might grok it. But if you're an exec in S&D, you'll understand > the motivating factor. > > Oh there's more. Like I said, the problem is in knowing certain things, > you have to be careful what you say because some things are not meant > for public consumption.... > > I do agree that we should concentrate on the positives, rather than some > dimwitted twit making accusations against Stuart and the IIUG. I agree > that Stuart is no angel, but I didn't witness anything that was in any > way illicit or illegal. > > But hey! What do I know? > Clearly more than I can say.... :-) > > -G The IIUG apparently is doing more than the first generation of people in terms of pushing Informix, but one would have to argue if it's just a hand job to placate the existing, installed base. Outside the installed base nobody even knows what the IIUG is, or what Informix is. It might even be argued that IBM is keeping IDS down so they can eventually market it as something new. It's just about forgotten completely, so the strategy may be working. -ID-

"InDeep" <indeep@indeep.com> wrote in message news:W71uj.4283$z94.2249@fe23.usenetserver.com... >> IBM can't sell into new markets thusly they can't sell IDS. Thusly? Thusly? Where's the number for The Samaritans ...?

> From: theharlequin36@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:42:31 +0000> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > "InDeep" <indeep@indeep.com> wrote in message > news:W71uj.4283$z94.2249@fe23.usenetserver.com...> > >> IBM can't sell into new markets thusly they can't sell IDS.> > Thusly? Thusly? Where's the number for The Samaritans ...? > This isn't anything new and its not just related to IDS. Its a complete failure on the part of IBM's S&D organization. IBM has sales broken down in to a couple of catagories. Aligned and Integrated (Largest accounts) SMB and White Space. The largest accounts have dedicated sales teams and they sell millions in software/hardware and services. You know that mythical 80/20 split. Well these customers buy 80% of the goods. The markets that IBM would like to break in to is the SMB marketplace, (Small to Medium sized businesses) , and in the the "whitespace" (any customer who a large customer but doesn't purchase IBM's products.) Chicago's financial markets as an example. The sales reps who tend to cover these accounts are the weaker / less experienced reps. Now take what I said about a lack of IM (Information Management) IT Specialists who know Informix. You can't sell what you don't know. So the only way that IBM can penetrate is via partners. Like Stuart, Ron, Dennis, etc ... And of course, since when you sell Informix, you're usually not selling IGS/BCS, you're going to find some internal friction in selling IDS in to larger non Informix shops. Incidently, do you know how many of the large Aligned and Integrated accounts do *not* have an IBM mainframe? I don't. And to give a specific problem... IBM has a very dark black eye when it comes to Chicago's finacial district. One of the people who knew the whole story was located in NY's finacial district, but has since retired. At least he was able to put the IBM spin when he told me. I've since heard several other sides to the story from friends of friends. So when I told a couple IBMers that if they want to go after the Chicago Financial district, they'd have to do an end run, they didn't grok it. That's why they're not going to win the white space. IBM's reps only know how to farm and to do frontal assaults. So while you may not agree with InDeep, the numbers that I've heard from IBM and what I do know show that there is some truth to his statement. But hey! What do I know? It wasn't like I was matrixed out to the S&D team. _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

On Feb 18, 8:42 am, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: theharlequi...@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:42:31 +0000> To: informix-l...@iiug.org> > "InDeep" <ind...@indeep.com> wrote in message >news:W71uj.4283$z94.2249@fe23.usenetserver.com...> > >> IBM can't sell into new markets thusly they can't sell IDS.> > Thusly? Thusly? Where's the number for The Samaritans ...? > > > This isn't anything new and its not just related to IDS. Its a complete failure on the part of IBM's S&D organization. > > IBM has sales broken down in to a couple of catagories. Aligned and Integrated (Largest accounts) SMB and White Space. > > The largest accounts have dedicated sales teams and they sell millions in software/hardware and services. You know that mythical 80/20 split. Well these customers buy 80% of the goods. > > The markets that IBM would like to break in to is the SMB marketplace, (Small to Medium sized businesses) , and in the the "whitespace" (any customer who a large customer but doesn't purchase IBM's products.) Chicago's financial markets as an example. The sales reps who tend to cover these accounts are the weaker / less experienced reps. > > Now take what I said about a lack of IM (Information Management) IT Specialists who know Informix. You can't sell what you don't know. > > So the only way that IBM can penetrate is via partners. Like Stuart, Ron, Dennis, etc ... > And of course, since when you sell Informix, you're usually not selling IGS/BCS, you're going to find some internal friction in selling IDS in to larger non Informix shops. > > Incidently, do you know how many of the large Aligned and Integrated accounts do *not* have an IBM mainframe? I don't. > > And to give a specific problem... IBM has a very dark black eye when it comes to Chicago's finacial district. One of the people who knew the whole story was located in NY's finacial district, but has since retired. At least he was able to put the IBM spin when he told me.  I've since heard several other sides to the story from friends of friends. So when I told a couple IBMers that if they want to go after the Chicago Financial district, they'd have to do an end run, they didn't grok it. > > That's why they're not going to win the white space. IBM's reps only know how to farm and to do frontal assaults. > > So while you may not agree with InDeep, the numbers that I've heard from IBM and what I do know show that there is some truth to his statement. > > But hey! What do I know? It wasn't like I was matrixed out to the S&D team. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_... Ah...more great wisdom from someone with the spelling skills of "less than a 5th grader" (ala the most recent silly TV show). finacial - that would be "financial." catagories - that would be "categories." A nice Monday morning chuckle - someone expunding (sic) authoritatively about a company as complex and complicated as IBM, but wouldn't pass his SAT's for spelling/grammar. Keep 'em coming! Slickster....

slickwillie999@gmail.com wrote: > Ah...more great wisdom from someone with the spelling skills of "less > than a 5th grader" (ala the most recent silly TV show). > > finacial - that would be "financial." > catagories - that would be "categories." > > A nice Monday morning chuckle - someone expunding (sic) > authoritatively about a company as complex and complicated as IBM, but > wouldn't pass his SAT's for spelling/grammar. > > Keep 'em coming! > Slickster.... > It's really more about using a spell-checker ( hiccup ) than anything. Wait till he ( hiccup ) misspells "definitely". But back on what Gumby said... It would be interesting to know what the real plans are for Informix. IBM could be using the Microsoft playbook to Embrace->Extend->Extinguish Informix, all the while giving the public impression that they want to sell product. As long as the niche base is happy they can dribble it out to the market, but in the long run have the idea to really get rid of it. Instead they should consider something like what EMC is doing with VMWare... http://www.news.com/EMC-to-push-VMware-public,-but-still-keep-control/2100-1014_3-6157256.html

> From: indeep@indeep.com> Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:37:53 -0800> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > > > slickwillie999@gmail.com wrote:> > Ah...more great wisdom from someone with the spelling skills of "less> > than a 5th grader" (ala the most recent silly TV show).> > > > finacial - that would be "financial."> > catagories - that would be "categories."> > > > A nice Monday morning chuckle - someone expunding (sic)> > authoritatively about a company as complex and complicated as IBM, but> > wouldn't pass his SAT's for spelling/grammar.> > > > Keep 'em coming!> > Slickster....> > > > It's really more about using a spell-checker ( hiccup ) than anything.> Wait till he ( hiccup ) misspells "definitely".> Well, its kind of funny that the only quip "sick willie" can make is one about spelling. Usually the one who can't hold their own in the discussion tends to look towards flaws in presentation not substance. ;-) > But back on what Gumby said... It would be interesting to know what the> real plans are for Informix. IBM could be using the Microsoft playbook> to Embrace->Extend->Extinguish Informix, all the while giving the public> impression that they want to sell product. As long as the niche base is> happy they can dribble it out to the market, but in the long run have the> idea to really get rid of it. Instead they should consider something like> what EMC is doing with VMWare...> When Informix was purchased by IBM, Janet and IBM made certain statements to the effect that they would continue to support IDS and its customers. So on one hand, Janet had a legal obligation to support Informix while on the other hand she wanted to kill it. And she did some very subtle things that hurt Informix. (And some not so subtle) Now that Janet is gone, one has to ask about her minions who are still hanging around. (Which leads back to my statement that the current leaders of IM are there just to get their tickets punched.) When you consider that on distributed platforms (Thats Windows/Linux/Unix to the rest of the world), IDS is outselling DB2, IBM has a compelling argument to keep it around. U2/Universe has been a cash cow even though Dick Pick is dead. I read that white paper that IBM bought and is on Paul's site. IBM's now stated position is that IDS is their OLTP engine and DB2 is their DW engine. That could work however, I have to question how committed IBM is to IDS. No offense, but SAP hasn't re-established a port and what about ATG, Lawson and other defections? In addition, IBM hasn't shifted their market position to reflect changes in the market place. IBM needs something like SAP in order to compete with Oracle. And of course here's another intersting thought. "Why purchase RAD (Rational Application Developer) when I can get the functionality that I need from Eclipse for free?" But thats a SWG level question that Steve Mills needs to address. ;-) But hey! What do I know? I'm just too damn lazy to use a spell chicker. :-P -G > http://www.news.com/EMC-to-push-VMware-public,-but-still-keep-control/2100-1014_3-6157256.html>; > > > _______________________________________________> Informix-list mailing list> Informix-list@iiug.org> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: indeep@indeep.com > > Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:37:53 -0800 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > > > > > slickwillie999@gmail.com wrote: > > > Ah...more great wisdom from someone with the spelling skills of "less > > > than a 5th grader" (ala the most recent silly TV show). > > > > > > finacial - that would be "financial." > > > catagories - that would be "categories." > > > > > > A nice Monday morning chuckle - someone expunding (sic) > > > authoritatively about a company as complex and complicated as IBM, but > > > wouldn't pass his SAT's for spelling/grammar. > > > > > > Keep 'em coming! > > > Slickster.... > > > > > > > It's really more about using a spell-checker ( hiccup ) than anything. > > Wait till he ( hiccup ) misspells "definitely". > > > > Well, its kind of funny that the only quip "sick willie" can make is one > about spelling. > Usually the one who can't hold their own in the discussion tends to look > towards flaws in presentation not substance. ;-) > > > But back on what Gumby said... It would be interesting to know what the > > real plans are for Informix. IBM could be using the Microsoft playbook > > to Embrace->Extend->Extinguish Informix, all the while giving the public > > impression that they want to sell product. As long as the niche base is > > happy they can dribble it out to the market, but in the long run have the > > idea to really get rid of it. Instead they should consider something like > > what EMC is doing with VMWare... > > > > When Informix was purchased by IBM, Janet and IBM made certain > statements to the effect that they would continue to support IDS and its > customers. So on one hand, Janet had a legal obligation to support > Informix while on the other hand she wanted to kill it. And she did > some very subtle things that hurt Informix. (And some not so subtle) > Now that Janet is gone, one has to ask about her minions who are still > hanging around. (Which leads back to my statement that the current > leaders of IM are there just to get their tickets punched.) > > When you consider that on distributed platforms (Thats > Windows/Linux/Unix to the rest of the world), IDS is outselling DB2, IBM > has a compelling argument to keep it around. U2/Universe has been a > cash cow even though Dick Pick is dead. > > I read that white paper that IBM bought and is on Paul's site. > IBM's now stated position is that IDS is their OLTP engine and DB2 is > their DW engine. That could work however, I have to question how > committed IBM is to IDS. No offense, but SAP hasn't re-established a > port and what about ATG, Lawson and other defections? > > In addition, IBM hasn't shifted their market position to reflect changes > in the market place. > IBM needs something like SAP in order to compete with Oracle. And of > course here's another intersting thought. "Why purchase RAD (Rational > Application Developer) when I can get the functionality that I need from > Eclipse for free?" But thats a SWG level question that Steve Mills needs > to address. ;-) > > But hey! What do I know? I'm just too damn lazy to use a spell chicker. :-P > > -G > > > > http://www.news.com/EMC-to-push-VMware-public,-but-still-keep-control/2100-1014_3-6157256.html > > There is also a certain amount of misunderstanding being pushed out, such as calling Informix "embedded". Is this term being morphed into something other than what it would normally mean? Embedded typically refers to things like hardware, such as controllers, and other firmware. When did 'embedded' mean something like Informix? I know there is an embedded perl, embedded MySQL, but these are intended towards use in firmware ( hardware ) . I have yet to see an Enterprise OLTP or DSS engine from another company called 'embedded'. This is what I'd call a gross misrepresentation of the product. I can see C-ISAM being called 'embedded' but IDS? This is really going in the wrong direction. Maybe slickwillie can point his frustration at IBM, and ask why they are doing some of the stupid things they are doing with Informix. MySQL is the predominant brand in the dot-com space, and if you think the dot-bomb is over, you should stop by www.socaltech.com, and see what the LA scene is up to these days. Lots and lots of MySQL, not a lot of Informix. By the way, being close to IBM is not necessarily a good thing, nor should it really matter. If the customer base would get up off its ass and demand more of IBM things might change. Until then this and other discussions are purely academic. I'm less than 6 deg from Sam P, and it doesn't really matter, we don't talk and he wouldn't listen to me anyway. ;-) -ID-

> When did 'embedded' mean something like Informix? I agree with you and I think IBM does too. IBM has been using integrated where they had been using embedded before and I think this is a good fit. >From the IDS 11 page at http://www.ibm.com/software/info/ids/index.jsp IDS 11 is the next evolution of Informix' Dynamic Server Informix fans have always appreciated the legendary reliability of IDS. Scalability, ease of administration, blazing OLTP performance and the range of application development options make IDS the data server of choice for integrated solutions. Andrew

Since when were SATs possessive? Dude, you have a serious problem with Pot and Kettle stuff. I would, like, build a bridge and get over it. j. Sane ego te vocavi. Forsitan capedictum tuum desit. -----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org]On Behalf Of slickwillie999@gmail.com Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:26 AM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results [deletia] A nice Monday morning chuckle - someone expunding (sic) authoritatively about a company as complex and complicated as IBM, but wouldn't pass his SAT's for spelling/grammar. Keep 'em coming! Slickster.... _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list