Re: Informix running on Linux

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Tim Schaefer wrote: > > Richard Stanford wrote: > > > > Well, that's what WGS is for (though they're not really publisizing it well). > > Same fscking code as 7.2 and only $295 per user, d/l off the website for crying > > out loud. Multi platform release later this year (if not already) and the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > only crippleware feature about it is the 2 RISC / 4 CISC processor limit. > > > > OK, have you tried OWGS? The NT version? Yeah. Crap, innit?[0] > It's not the same as a real UNIX working with NT. I have similar joy taping my > thumbs to my wrists when it comes to NT. It just isn't the same as UNIX, and > OWGS is not a "complete" product, compared to the UNIX version. Much of the > UNIX version is omitted from the OWGS version. I like much of the interface > with OWGS however just going out to the shell to do work, you're back in DOS > land. It's a shame. I don't even want to work on it because of the shell. > And yes, I have MKS toolkit, but it's not the same as a real UNIX. Read again -- OWGS is coming to UNIX. Yup. Straight from the mouths of, well not babes per se, but a couple of nice high-level Informix developers and marketing people (different people, not a developer/marketer person). > Softway is on my system, but I haven't activated it yet--I'm afraid of what > it's going to do to performance or the registry. > > Softway has announced their latest version of their NT-to-UNIX glomming software, > that helps morph NT into a UNIX. But this is an additional software component > that has to be ADDED on. Why not just use UNIX--Linux in this case--and save > the hassle. Or my personal fave for intel un*xs, FreeBSD. But I get the point. And I agree with it, btw. > Memory requirements are even more critical, especially if you add an HTTPD, > like Netscape, and a few other "services" to the heap. Hey, I'm not contesting the fact that NT is immature. Heck, a rogue application can still BlueScreenOfDeath it /way/ too easily (read: at all) for my tastes as a server OS. > NT swaps to disk as a part of the standard operating procedure. It's a sloppy > operating system. It really gets expensive. Windows NT is just too expensive > for the small business, and way too inefficient for the hardware. You can't > buy enough memory for it. My Linux system has swap space it never uses. Agreed, agreed, a thousand times agreed. > Most of us would probably be able to market cheap affordable 4GL solutions again > with Linux, or be able to develop scalable client/server apps with a cheap UNIX > where Informix 7.x--the complete package--is running. I can't do 4GL with NT. > 4GL isn't right for a lot of sites, but it persists for quite a few others. There > are many sites where a GUI is not needed or wanted. At least with Linux I can > set up a low cost server running Linux, and use Windows PCs to either do > client/server GUIs or telnets for 4GLs. It's so simple, and a scaled down path > just like we do with the bigger systems. [fx: massive head nodding and other signs of consensus] > > It may not be free, but its cheap (comparitively). Now that idea about a > > standalone Informix distribution, though... hrm... > It's cheap for the OWGS software, but the hardware will eat you alive in > memory and other software. NT is not a small-scale proposition anymore. And > MS is putting all kinds of licensing restrictions on NT that didn't used to > exist. In 3.51 you could get away with some creative licensing strategies > but 4.0 has a tighter, more painful licensing strategy. You really are at the > mercy of Microsoft. AARGH! WGS will go to UNIX. Please, trust me on this one. Think 7.2 with processor# restrictions and $295 per user license fees. Oh, and unlike MS Informix has never required a $3k 'Internet Server' license fee for its db servers, at least. > In the history of the business I have never seen such a confusing message > coming from Informix. It all started about the time New Era came along. This > is when they got into trouble. They seem to have forgotten that the majority > of businesses out there are not big corporations, and that most of us don't > need object orientated data bases or GUIs just yet--at least not at the prices > they want. Maybe in a more captive market this strategy works, but not in > the market I work in. Yes, it's time for some marketing innovation to come > along with the whizbang software innovation. It's not like the actual cost to > port the software is going to hurt them. More than that, there are a lot of us who still deal with text-based systems. For those, NewEra is no good. > Take a look at Oracle's web page: www.oracle.com > Take a look at Informix's web page: www.informix.com > > See what the emphasis is for both of these. Without too much analysis you > can see who's reaching out. If Informix wants to play the "database salon" for > the elite, they should just say so, and I'll all move along quietly. The main problem with that, to me at least, is that I actually /like/ Informix products, for the most part. It helps that we have (or had, before the cosmic reshuffle) a reasonably good Rep. and that I'm getting to know the 2nd line support techs by their first names (done all the 1st line, you see...), but their software is pretty good. Now if they'd just get out of our way, stand back (after providing us with a few more neat tools) and watch our dust... Speaking of tools, (and this should probablybe a seperate post) has anyone out there on 6+ found a way to check session usage percentages at the oninit level? Er, think of the way `top` shows program usage percentages at the processor level, for comparison purposes. Had a situation the other day where some queries were taking up 100% CPU time (all oninits maxed) and had a devil of a time tracking down which ones they were -- which should have been easy. Any ideas? -Richard [0] My personal opinion only, etc, yadda yadda yadda.