An Informix Positive Point

I've decided to start tossing "good news" into the mix out here. There seems to be plenty of bad, so I thought I'd try to tip the scales every so often... Just interviewed 3 candidates for a brand-new (not replacing anyone) senior Informix DBA position at a very, very successful company on the east coast. They are growing, and have 3 IFMX engines - two on IDS 10 (one primary, one secondary HDR), and one on IDS 11. Primary production engine is about 3TB, and the DW engine is 8 TB - all on IDS. Mark Scranton Xtivia Inc. www.markscranton.com

Mark, What makes you think that any discussion about IDS isn't positive? The one thing that you missed was that Janet tried to kill Informix via "Death by 1,000 cuts". The worst thing she did was ruin a great SAP relationship. (Oh wait now we have Serge getting ready to plug that SAP and DB2 run great!) The fact that IDS withstood Janet et al's abuse is a testimony to the product. The fact that the numbers are constantly increasing in licenses sold and renewed without IBM's S&D's lead is also a great point. You also have to give some credit to IBM's IDS team leads. Using the IIUG to get the message out while they can't is also a good thing. I think that its important that I and others expose the warts of IBM so that IBM gets the message. The only problem is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. By this I mean I told a couple of people that they needed to change the sales comp plan, and set some goals that are IDS based for the FLMs of the IT Specialists as part of their PBCs. (Only those within IBM will grok that...) To the best of my knowledge, that didn't happen. I also opened the door to one of my clients. What happens there is up to my client and IBM. (One has to ask if IBM's IM pillar is sending people to JavaOne as well as present at JavaOne?...) You want to make IDS great again? Then create the next 4GL that can allow people to whip out those Mom and Pop apps... > From: mark.scranton@gmail.com> Subject: An Informix Positive Point> Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:50:36 -0800> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > I've decided to start tossing "good news" into the mix out here. There> seems to be plenty of bad, so I thought I'd try to tip the scales> every so often...> > Just interviewed 3 candidates for a brand-new (not replacing anyone)> senior Informix DBA position at a very, very successful company on the> east coast. They are growing, and have 3 IFMX engines - two on IDS 10> (one primary, one secondary HDR), and one on IDS 11. Primary> production engine is about 3TB, and the DW engine is 8 TB - all on> IDS.> > Mark Scranton> Xtivia Inc.> www.markscranton.com> _______________________________________________> Informix-list mailing list> Informix-list@iiug.org> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Mark, > The only problem is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't > make him drink. By this I mean I told a couple of people that they > needed to change the sales comp plan, and set some goals that are IDS > based for the FLMs of the IT Specialists as part of their PBCs. (Only > those within IBM will grok that...) To the best of my knowledge, that > didn't happen. > I don't see any problem in explaining PBC is our annual objective plan... something we propose to do with agreement from management... Just to let ppl know it's not some dark IBM procedure :) > You want to make IDS great again? Then create the next 4GL that can > allow people to whip out those Mom and Pop apps... May not be what you're thinking, but you should check the latest slides from chat with the labs... Regards -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

> > I don't see any problem in explaining PBC is our annual objective plan... > something we propose to do with agreement from management... Just to let ppl > know it's not some dark IBM procedure :) > Its not that its some dark sekret of IBM, but first, its not something that most people here want to understand. Also there's an issue of what I can and can't say. I mean if I mention Eagle and Eagle II sales comp plans, will that get me in to trouble? (I'm going from memory of the names of the sales comp plans that are a couple of years out of date...) The odds are I won't get in to any trouble. But if I start talking about the details of the sales plans... That would get me in trouble. ;-) So there's an issue of what I can say in public and what I can say to an IBMer. With respect to PBCs, its not what a PBC is, but how to take advantage of it that could be problematic. > > > You want to make IDS great again? Then create the next 4GL that can > > allow people to whip out those Mom and Pop apps... > > May not be what you're thinking, but you should check the latest slides from > chat with the labs... > > Regards > > -- > Fernando Nunes > Portugal Well, depending on who you talk to, there's a bit of a debate as to what made Informix successful. Some say it was SE and 4GL that allowed small developers write custom applications. An example would be if you run a small trucking company, you could buy a pc and then buy an application which was written to solve your issues. The application was written in 4GL and ran on Informix. For a lot of SMBs, SE was powerful enough. Probably still is, which is why MySQL is successful. ( I think SE is better, but I'm biased. ;-) I haven't priced out IDS, but you're talking about a 50K investment in database and hardware. (1 or 2 multi-core cpu, SAS Raid 10 hot swap drives...). That's still pretty reasonable for a small business. And that machine will kick some serious ass) So then you need someone to take on LAID where L=Linux, A=Apache, I=IDS, D = Developer's framework of choice. (Rails, Grails, Struts, Python, Php, C, etc ...) I guess I could had said LAIF but LAID sounds much better. ;-) _________________________________________________________________ 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: > > Well, depending on who you talk to, there's a bit of a debate as to what > made Informix successful. Some say it was SE and 4GL that allowed small > developers write custom applications. An example would be if you run a > small trucking company, you could buy a pc and then buy an application > which was written to solve your issues. The application was written in > 4GL and ran on Informix. For a lot of SMBs, SE was powerful enough. > Probably still is, which is why MySQL is successful. ( I think SE is > better, but I'm biased. ;-) > You're right on dude. SE had better features than MySQL _10_ years ago. This is why I don't understand how IBM can miss this. They ( IBM ) have the opportunity to white-board the differences internally, as well as in trade magazines, and on the web, but to this day, nothing! It is sheer incompetence. SE is a great opportunity to footprint Informix in shops that are using MySQL, then upshift them into IDS. The path is intuitively obvious if you actually understand the products from Informix. -ID-

Indeep, I didn't say that. You just did. ;-) I agree that the idea has merit. Something to definitely think about. SE is essentially C-ISAM. So do you go Open Source and if so, which license? IBM gave Cloudscape away to Apache and Sun picked it up and branded it as Java DB. You're not asking a community to add or upkeep SE, but to seed the market. So do you need to actually go Open Source... You could release SE along the same lines as MySQL. You release it free to use in development or non-commercial uses, then charge for it in commercial applications. Thats one for IBM to stew over. If Stuart is listening, he should sound the idea off IBM and see what they say.... -G PS. I wouldn't say its incompetence on the part of IBM. Its just that you have to think outside the box. Something IBM's culture can't do and doesn't allow. > From: indeep@indeep.com > Subject: Re: An Informix Positive Point > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:44:08 -0800 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > > Well, depending on who you talk to, there's a bit of a debate as to what > > made Informix successful. Some say it was SE and 4GL that allowed small > > developers write custom applications. An example would be if you run a > > small trucking company, you could buy a pc and then buy an application > > which was written to solve your issues. The application was written in > > 4GL and ran on Informix. For a lot of SMBs, SE was powerful enough. > > Probably still is, which is why MySQL is successful. ( I think SE is > > better, but I'm biased. ;-) > > > > You're right on dude. > > SE had better features than MySQL _10_ years ago. > > This is why I don't understand how IBM can miss this. They ( IBM ) have > the opportunity to white-board the differences internally, as well as in > trade magazines, and on the web, but to this day, nothing! > > It is sheer incompetence. SE is a great opportunity to footprint Informix > in shops that are using MySQL, then upshift them into IDS. The path is > intuitively obvious if you actually understand the products from Informix. > > -ID- > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/

I have yet to run into a MySQL shop that needs the source code to MySQL for the sake of studying the code, or making code changes to the product. <but> There are certainly advantages to compiling MySQL natively on a machine, and doing so without any intention of ever reading a single line of code. This is for advanced users, most will happily use the GA released binary and be done with it. MySQL installations have a very flexible installation, so these kinds of options are there for folks that need it. Having the code is a _nice-to-have_ but certainly not necessary. SE is a peer with MySQL, therefore it follows to have it as an alternative. However, this opportunity is fading as MySQL now has stored procs, and partitioning. The window is closing, but still quite viable. There are a lot of shops and ISPs who would want the simplicity of MySQL if it were available. But they would never need or want the source code. So open-sourcing SE is not necessary. The buzz is what it's all about. But without understanding the market IBM is missing a _HUGE_ opportunity to win over a new generation of people that would probably like SE and IDS if they understood the position these products have in the market. IBM missing this market speaks volumes about the ineptness of their marketing department, what a bunch of bozos. -ID- Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Indeep, > > I didn't say that. You just did. ;-) > I agree that the idea has merit. Something to definitely think about. > > SE is essentially C-ISAM. So do you go Open Source and if so, which license? > IBM gave Cloudscape away to Apache and Sun picked it up and branded it > as Java DB. > You're not asking a community to add or upkeep SE, but to seed the > market. So do you need to actually go Open Source... > > You could release SE along the same lines as MySQL. You release it free > to use in development or non-commercial uses, then charge for it in > commercial applications. > > Thats one for IBM to stew over. > > If Stuart is listening, he should sound the idea off IBM and see what > they say.... > > -G > PS. I wouldn't say its incompetence on the part of IBM. Its just that > you have to think outside the box. Something IBM's culture can't do and > doesn't allow. > > > > From: indeep@indeep.com > > Subject: Re: An Informix Positive Point > > Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:44:08 -0800 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > > > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, depending on who you talk to, there's a bit of a debate as to > what > > > made Informix successful. Some say it was SE and 4GL that allowed > small > > > developers write custom applications. An example would be if you run a > > > small trucking company, you could buy a pc and then buy an application > > > which was written to solve your issues. The application was written in > > > 4GL and ran on Informix. For a lot of SMBs, SE was powerful enough. > > > Probably still is, which is why MySQL is successful. ( I think SE is > > > better, but I'm biased. ;-) > > > > > > > You're right on dude. > > > > SE had better features than MySQL _10_ years ago. > > > > This is why I don't understand how IBM can miss this. They ( IBM ) have > > the opportunity to white-board the differences internally, as well as in > > trade magazines, and on the web, but to this day, nothing! > > > > It is sheer incompetence. SE is a great opportunity to footprint Informix > > in shops that are using MySQL, then upshift them into IDS. The path is > > intuitively obvious if you actually understand the products from > Informix. > > > > -ID- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Informix-list mailing list > > Informix-list@iiug.org > > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn more. > <http://biggestloser.msn.com/>;

"Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gumby@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.608.1204723954.20610.informix-list@iiug.org... >> You want to make IDS great again? Then create the next 4GL that can allow >> people to whip out those Mom and Pop apps... Well, I don't think this will happen (the Mom and Pop focus). I know IBM professes to love "SMB" but it really isn't very good at selling to it, at least at the low end. The reason is that most people who get to the top in IBM, or in any other large vendor, usually have zero experience of or idea of what it is like to run a smallish business, and lack the experience, and probably mindset, to empathise with them. Indeed there's probably a tacit recognition with IBM of this, and of the way in which Business Partners, many of them SMBs themselves, are the way into these accounts. The various IBM Partner initiatives, ISV for, er, ISVs, and SVI and VAP for straight resellers, are actually very well-intentioned and in my experience - I'm also a Sun, Oracle and EMC reseller - at least as if not more attractive than those from other vendors. (They are woefully executed though: for example SVI is is so complex, bureaucratic and impenetrable that we and many other UK resellers enagage a third-party company staffed by ex-IBMers to administer for us! That's quite a testament to a vendor programme). There is also plenty of technical and pre-sales help for Business Partners who may bring new licence business to IBM and need some help on the technicalities. One-time cdi poster Spokey Wheeler has that role at IBM UK for Informix prospects (not sure if that's his role full-time, but he's always been available to help us out). The point is that IBM makes the right noises about SMB and has decent back-up and well-intentioned initiatives to encourage it. But SMB encompasses a wide range, and Mom and Pop businesses are at the bottom end of it. I do know of some resellers and ISVs who target that market but I think it unlikely that it is the future for Informix. Winning back the big shops - Informatica, SAP etc - *that's* the way forward.

Neil Truby wrote: > "Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gumby@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.608.1204723954.20610.informix-list@iiug.org... > >>> You want to make IDS great again? Then create the next 4GL that can allow >>> people to whip out those Mom and Pop apps... > > Well, I don't think this will happen (the Mom and Pop focus). I know IBM > professes to love "SMB" but it really isn't very good at selling to it, at > least at the low end. The reason is that most people who get to the top in > IBM, or in any other large vendor, usually have zero experience of or idea > of what it is like to run a smallish business, and lack the experience, and > probably mindset, to empathise with them. http://www.xs4all.nl/~maroen/engels/lyrics/gloryday.htm Get a grip on reality folks. <g> If IBM wants to move into the SMB market they will either: (A) purchase a company that has channel access, or (B) hire managers with experience. If they don't it is because they are perfectly happy running one of the planet's most successful companies. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

hmmm Daniel this is about An Informix Positive Point i hate to say this but i never have seen a posting from you which has an Informix Positive Point..... Superboer way fast=http://www.clipjes.nl/clip/nederlands/n/normaal_- _oerend_hard.html

Hi. I was using one of the IIUG scripts to calculate better sizes for extents (tabextplan) and I realized that one table gave me a different result in comparison to oncheck -pt. Researching, i found out that there are two record in sysmaster:systabnames with the same tabname and different partnum, and the table I'm talking about is not fragmented. Is that kind of duplicate something normal? should I be worry about corruption on database? Thanks in advance Omar Mu'oz ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

> From: indeep@indeep.com > Having the code is a _nice-to-have_ but certainly not necessary. SE is a peer > with MySQL, therefore it follows to have it as an alternative. However, this > opportunity is fading as MySQL now has stored procs, and partitioning. The > window is closing, but still quite viable. There are a lot of shops and ISPs > who would want the simplicity of MySQL if it were available. But they would > never need or want the source code. So open-sourcing SE is not necessary. > You don't need stored procedures or partitioning for most database applications. (Note: There are lot more tiny dbs out there than you think.) MySQL is doing this so that they can compete against the big boys. In other words MySQL is "growing up". It needs these things to survive. SE? Why? You need table partitioning, parallelism in queries, stored procedures? Upgrade to IDS. (Which is your > The buzz is what it's all about. But without understanding the market IBM > is missing a _HUGE_ opportunity to win over a new generation of people that > would probably like SE and IDS if they understood the position these products > have in the market. IBM missing this market speaks volumes about the ineptness > of their marketing department, what a bunch of bozos. > > -ID- IBM never really understood "buzz". At least not in the last 25 years or so. They've survived because no one ever got fired for choosing IBM. One could say that IBM lost its aggressiveness when it became a monopoly. So no hunters just farmers. With respect to IBM "marketing", its a bit of a strange beast. I've never had to deal with them directly. Just S&D and IGS. I'll have to pick a few people's brains about that one. _________________________________________________________________ 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

Superboer wrote: > hmmm Daniel > this is about An Informix Positive Point > > i hate to say this but i never have seen a posting from you which has > an Informix Positive Point..... > > > Superboer > > > way fast=http://www.clipjes.nl/clip/nederlands/n/normaal_- > _oerend_hard.html Years ago I worked with Informix. Years ago I worked with Fortran, COBOL, Paradox, WordStar, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, REXX, etc. You want positive or honest? You can't have both. Part of teaching at a major research university is the concept of intellectual honesty. I don't do happy talk and marketing double-talk. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > Part of teaching at a major research university is the concept of > intellectual honesty. I don't do happy talk and marketing double-talk. Unless it's for Oracle, of course.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Part of teaching at a major research university is the concept of >> intellectual honesty. I don't do happy talk and marketing double-talk. > Unless it's for Oracle, of course. They don't pay my salary and they get no more kind words than anyone else when I don't like what I see. My loyalty, if that is the right word, is to my students, to IT professionals, trying to pay the mortgage and put the kids through university. I think Informix "was" an excellent product. In its time the best commercial RDBMS. But the ship took a torpedo. Not one fired by Microsoft or Oracle but one fired by its own management team. IBM is not patching the hole and refloating the boat. IBM is removing the valuables from the ship safe. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan said: > > Blah, blah, blah, wank, wank, wank. If you don't have something positive to say, don't fucking post in the thread. Idiot. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the Labour Party. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent."

DA Morgan wrote: > Superboer wrote: >> hmmm Daniel >> this is about An Informix Positive Point >> >> i hate to say this but i never have seen a posting from you which has >> an Informix Positive Point..... >> >> >> Superboer >> >> >> way fast=http://www.clipjes.nl/clip/nederlands/n/normaal_- >> _oerend_hard.html > > Years ago I worked with Informix. Years ago I worked with Fortran, > COBOL, Paradox, WordStar, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, REXX, etc. > > You want positive or honest? You can't have both. > > Part of teaching at a major research university is the concept of > intellectual honesty. I don't do happy talk and marketing double-talk. And you also listened to the Boss... I can't understand why you quit the good habits... I bet nowadays you listen to the Spice Girls! :P -- Fernando Nunes Portugal http://informix-technology.blogspot.com My email works... but I don't check it frequently...

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > Mark, > > What makes you think that any discussion about IDS isn't positive? > The one thing that you missed was that Janet tried to kill Informix via > "Death by 1,000 cuts". > The worst thing she did was ruin a great SAP relationship. (Oh wait now > we have Serge getting ready to plug that SAP and DB2 run great!) > > The fact that IDS withstood Janet et al's abuse is a testimony to the > product. The fact that the numbers are constantly increasing in licenses > sold and renewed without IBM's S&D's lead is also a great point. > > You also have to give some credit to IBM's IDS team leads. Using the > IIUG to get the message out while they can't is also a good thing. > > I think that its important that I and others expose the warts of IBM so > that IBM gets the message. > > The only problem is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't > make him drink. By this I mean I told a couple of people that they > needed to change the sales comp plan, and set some goals that are IDS > based for the FLMs of the IT Specialists as part of their PBCs. (Only > those within IBM will grok that...) To the best of my knowledge, that > didn't happen. > > I also opened the door to one of my clients. What happens there is up to > my client and IBM. > (One has to ask if IBM's IM pillar is sending people to JavaOne as well > as present at JavaOne?...) > > You want to make IDS great again? Then create the next 4GL that can > allow people to whip out those Mom and Pop apps... > > I thought the conventional wisdom was to get away from 4gl in order to create Java (or whatever) apps that are database-agnostic . . . JWC

InDeep wrote: > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> > >> Well, depending on who you talk to, there's a bit of a debate as to >> what made Informix successful. Some say it was SE and 4GL that allowed >> small developers write custom applications. An example would be if you >> run a small trucking company, you could buy a pc and then buy an >> application which was written to solve your issues. The application >> was written in 4GL and ran on Informix. For a lot of SMBs, SE was >> powerful enough. Probably still is, which is why MySQL is successful. >> ( I think SE is better, but I'm biased. ;-) >> > > You're right on dude. > > SE had better features than MySQL _10_ years ago. > > This is why I don't understand how IBM can miss this. They ( IBM ) have > the opportunity to white-board the differences internally, as well as in > trade magazines, and on the web, but to this day, nothing! > > It is sheer incompetence. SE is a great opportunity to footprint Informix > in shops that are using MySQL, then upshift them into IDS. The path is > intuitively obvious if you actually understand the products from Informix. > > -ID- Would this require an open-sourcing of Informix SE? Seems that it would in order to be 'price-competitive' . . . JWC

So it is years ago for you .... hhmmmm what the fuck are you doing then in this newsgroup besides trying to piss on informix... trying to scare off new or old informix users and convince them to use crap like obstacle. is this because you see a threat for obstacle on the horizon which you must kill in order to make damn sure you do not have to work with informix in the future???? bugger of mate. Superboer. way fast=http://www.clipjes.nl/clip/nederlands/n/normaal_- _oerend_hard.html On 6 mrt, 20:08, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > Superboer wrote: > > hmmm Daniel > > this is about An Informix Positive Point > > > i hate to say this but i never have seen a posting from you which has > > an Informix Positive Point..... > > > Superboer > > > way fast=http://www.clipjes.nl/clip/nederlands/n/normaal_- > > _oerend_hard.html > > Years ago I worked with Informix. Years ago I worked with Fortran, > COBOL, Paradox, WordStar, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, REXX, etc. > > You want positive or honest? You can't have both. > > Part of teaching at a major research university is the concept of > intellectual honesty. I don't do happy talk and marketing double-talk. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)