Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:55:26 +0100, "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > >"Larry Edelstein" <lsedels@us.ibm.com> wrote in message >news:3F65B2D3.FC4C3F4F@us.ibm.com... >> As has been the pattern with your appends, they are complete >> misrepresentations and demonstrate that you are terribly misinformed. You >need >> an IBM software briefing. Technology from Informix products is being >> integrated and shared within the IBM Data Management family. Give it time. > >As per Lord Birkenhead when he was addressing the Court of Appeal. The >presiding judge said, with that acerbic edge to his voice which judges >reserve for the task of cutting counsel down to size, "Your argument leaves >me none the wiser". Lord Birkenhead looked up at the wizened and >septuagenarian judge and replied "Maybe not wiser, my Lord, but hopefully >better informed." > >And in this case, you may not think I'm wise, but I am very well-informed. >I sit on the Board of Directors of the International Informix Users Group >and have thereby sat through endless IBM briefings on the future of Informix >under IBM. > >You, presumably, would not attend an IBM briefing that declared that the >moon was made of (big) blue cheese and quite happily accept this >unquestioningly? When I attend IBM briefings - or anyone else's really - I >tend to treat everything I'm told with a (hopefully) healthy dose of >scepticism, and test everything I'm told against other evidence available. > >In this case, I agree that the IBM message is "everything's tickety-boo with >Informix under IBM". The evidence of the real world, however, is that an >increasing number of customers are abandonning Informix under pressure from >their ISVs. Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if >anyone knows of one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to >DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really >matter what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is >what counts. > Case in point . . . . . Lawson Software. All I've heard in the EMail group for those that are moving away from Informix is that they're moving to Oracle and SQL Server. I don't recall anyone talking about DB2.
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. 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 conducted and re-validated over several quarters, state that they are staying with IBM. Of those, a measurable percent have considered DB2; 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. 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. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Carlson wrote: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:55:26 +0100, "Neil Truby" > <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > > >>"Larry Edelstein" <lsedels@us.ibm.com> wrote in message >>news:3F65B2D3.FC4C3F4F@us.ibm.com... >> >>>As has been the pattern with your appends, they are complete >>>misrepresentations and demonstrate that you are terribly misinformed. You >> >>need >> >>>an IBM software briefing. Technology from Informix products is being >>>integrated and shared within the IBM Data Management family. Give it time. >> >>As per Lord Birkenhead when he was addressing the Court of Appeal. The >>presiding judge said, with that acerbic edge to his voice which judges >>reserve for the task of cutting counsel down to size, "Your argument leaves >>me none the wiser". Lord Birkenhead looked up at the wizened and >>septuagenarian judge and replied "Maybe not wiser, my Lord, but hopefully >>better informed." >> >>And in this case, you may not think I'm wise, but I am very well-informed. >>I sit on the Board of Directors of the International Informix Users Group >>and have thereby sat through endless IBM briefings on the future of Informix >>under IBM. >> >>You, presumably, would not attend an IBM briefing that declared that the >>moon was made of (big) blue cheese and quite happily accept this >>unquestioningly? When I attend IBM briefings - or anyone else's really - I >>tend to treat everything I'm told with a (hopefully) healthy dose of >>scepticism, and test everything I'm told against other evidence available. >> >>In this case, I agree that the IBM message is "everything's tickety-boo with >>Informix under IBM". The evidence of the real world, however, is that an >>increasing number of customers are abandonning Informix under pressure from >>their ISVs. Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if >>anyone knows of one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to >>DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really >>matter what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is >>what counts. >> > > > Case in point . . . . . Lawson Software. > > All I've heard in the EMail group for those that are moving away from > Informix is that they're moving to Oracle and SQL Server. I don't > recall anyone talking about DB2.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 15:13:29 -0400, WW Informix Marketing <""mhiskey\\"@DO-NOT-E-MAIL ME.ibm.com> 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. > >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 >conducted and re-validated over several quarters, state that they are >staying with IBM. Of those, a measurable percent have considered DB2; >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. > Lawson Software, for example . . . . . of course not, it's not 'forced' . . . . 8-)