Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

WW Informix Marketing wrote: > ALL: > > Sorry to burst the bubble of those like Obnoxio, etc. But I think that > somehow trashing IBM's support of Informix just gives you something to > say. As Coluche said: "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" -- I don't need to trash IBM's support of Informix just to have something to say. (I'm sure I'll get a lot of agreement with this point, somehow!) I looked the word "support" up at dictionary.com. Which meaning do you attribute to "support": sup'port Pronunciation Key (s-p'rt, -prt) tr.v. sup'port'ed, sup'port'ing, sup'ports 1. To bear the weight of, especially from below. 2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping. 3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: ?His flaw'd heart... too weak the conflict to support? (Shakespeare). 4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief. 5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities. 6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story. 7. 1. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign. 2. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes. 8. To endure; tolerate: ?At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult? (Samuel Johnson). 9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer). ? My guess is 8, really, although it's such an archaic meaning, I don't really think it's fair to use the word in this context. I've never heard it used like that. And even then I wouldn't describe it as "tolerance". Perhaps you meant "suffer"? suf'fer Pronunciation Key (sfr) v. suf'fered, suf'fer'ing, suf'fers v. intr. 1. To feel pain or distress; sustain loss, injury, harm, or punishment. 2. To tolerate or endure evil, injury, pain, or death. See Synonyms at bear1. 3. To appear at a disadvantage: ?He suffers by comparison with his greater contemporary? (Albert C. Baugh). > I can positively assert that according to a blind independent study of a > statistically significant group of customers and business partners > around the world, they are surely NOT migrating away from Informix in > droves. In fact, 80% of respondents, in this survey which has been I never said they were. In fact, in my experience, 100% of people are staying with Informix, but maybe I'm just lucky. However, whenever I hear people discussing it, they don't seem to be "considering" DB2. > conducted and re-validated over several quarters, state that they are > staying with IBM. Of those, a measurable percent have considered DB2; Consideration isn't the same as acquisition. :o) > in many cases, that consideration is due to a particular ISV application > that works with DB2 UDB, not that IBM is forcing them to look. I'm fairly certain that if IBM wanted to make ISVs support Informix, they could. I don't think it wouldn't take a lot. Is what you're saying that because IBM isn't managing to get ISVs to continue supporting Informix, the ISVs are the villians? All of them? > In the next few days, a research paper from an independant firm in > Europe will discuss IBM's ongoing support of Inforix, and IDS in > particular. I think if you hung out here for a while and saw the tenor of my original posts and my continued enthusiasm for Informix, you would see that I toed (toadied?) the IBM line for a long time, but I'm tired of saying "rah-rah, IBM!" when IBM's "support" of Informix technology does not support (as in meanings 1 to 7 above) me. -- Ciao, The Disenchanted Obnoxious One "Ogni homo me guarda come fosse una testa de cazi"