Re: When It Couldn't Get Any Better

Art, I realize you may not be able to answer till next week, so I'll post now and await your response this coming week. I can't think of anyone more intensely connected with Informix as an end-user, customer, and developer. What do you see as the single biggest reason for DB2 receding and Informix taking the lead? -ID- Art S. Kagel (Oninit) wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Fernando Nunes wrote: >> >>> mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 28, 11:28 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Not that I'm flaming certain marketing folks within the IM pillar. >>>>>> They >>>>>> have their hands tied and are trying to do things that they can't do >>>>>> "through channels". >>>>>> >>>>> Why does it never occur to this group that IBM is not a stupid company >>>>> and is doing precisely what it decided to do when it acquired >>>>> Informix. >>>>> >>>>> You may not like it that your personal playtoy is where it is. But IBM >>>>> didn't acquire Informix because it saw a great strategic opportunity >>>>> in having a second, competing, database product. >>>>> >>>>> In all of the years Informix has been an IBM product the behavior of >>>>> IBM has been consistent. And consistency is a clear indication that >>>>> they are perfectly pleased with where things are. >>>>> -- >>>>> Daniel A. Morgan >>>>> University of Washington >>>>> damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) >>>>> >>>> Well said Daniel. I was there from the start - on the Informix team, >>>> writing a Redbook to help people transition from IDS to DB2 (we told >>>> them it wouldn't happen), and on the Worldwide team that did the IDS >>>> 10 tour(s). I agree about the consistency from IBM, whether we like it >>>> or not. I personally know that the initial plan was to move all IDS >>>> customers to DB2. That became clear over time that it wasn't going to >>>> happen, so everything started to change. Slowly, but it did. One of >>>> our poster-people (all pun intended) said that "Janet couldn't utter >>>> IDS"...well - I stood in Tokyo on the same stage with Janet - and all >>>> I talked about was IDS. So did Janet. At that point, it wasn't clear >>>> to all that IDS was here to stay, but tide was starting to turn >>>> already. IBM HAS adopted IDS as the OLTP engine - that has been made >>>> clear. This is a HUGE victory considering one of my first goals handed >>>> down by mgmt was to "help the IDS customers understand the value of >>>> transititioning to DB2." Of course, I didn't do that at all. All I >>>> said in the 18 cities tour I did right after the acquisition was >>>> "learn as much as you can about DB2, and then you can make an educated >>>> decision." Wasn't exactly what was wanted, but as always it was >>>> honest, technically pure, and gave the customers credit and respect >>>> for what they have learned (and loved) about the IDS architecture over >>>> the years. >>>> >>>> Mark Scranton >>>> Xtivia Inc. >>>> >>> After reading your post I have the clear feeling that something has >>> changed... >>> DA said exactly the opposite. And of course, people changed... >>> Anyway... My point it that things changed... and they are changing... >>> and the product is changing... >>> But of course, by DA point of view, we should not be talking about >>> Informix as a product by now... It should have been gone a few years >>> ago... Keep trying... But to be successful you should bring Oracle >>> customers here... I'd say only them will believe you by now... >>> >>> >>> Regards. >>> >> >> No I didn't. The point of the acquisition had nothing to do with >> IBM wanting, or needing, a second RDBMS product and on that we are >> in full agreement. >> >> IBM didn't change its mind on that either. I decided it was better >> to placate unhappy Informix licensees than to lose them all to >> Microsoft and Oracle because they sure weren't switching to DB2. >> >> We are still in placate-them mode today. Want to see how it works? >> Look at Oracle's purchase of rdb. Oracle bought it when? >> > Daniel, > > And there's the difference. Oracle bought RDB when DEC went belly up in > what 1994? They did what with it? Nothing. IB there have been two bug > patches in the intervening 14 years. IBM could have done that with 7.31 > and 9.30. Both would be rock solid nearly bug free technology by now. > They didn't. What IBM ended up doing was making minor enhancements to > 7.31 and to make many more innovative feature additions to IDS 9+ than > it has to DB2, indeed WAY more than Oracle did for 9g, 10g & 11g (BTW, > an aside, what's the 'g' for? Good enough? Give us more $$? Dunno.) > That's not placating the licensees. That's returning a product to the > technological leadership it was beginning to show before Phil told the > world not to buy any more IDS until 9.xx was stable. We listened, sales > tanked, and the accountants got creative. But that's ancient history > and we were speaking about recent events. > > Daniel, since you graced us a while ago with the OH so very wrong > prediction that IDS would be dead in the marketplace by 2006 <sniggers>, > I'll also go out on a limb and make a prediction. Who knows you may > even get the chance to snigger at me in a few years. This is not based > on any inside knowledge, just my own observations. By the end of 2010, > DB2 LUW will be the legacy product and IDS will be IBM's primary RDBMS > on those platforms. IDS will have near 100% client compatibility with > DB2 LUW making DB2 redundant. My prediction and we only have to wait > two years or less to see it's verity or fallacy. Am I a prophet or > charlatan or am I simply hoping that I've provided a self fulfilling > prophesy? We'll see. > > Art S. Kagel > Oninit > > > > =========================================================================================== > > Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic > communications disclaimer: > http://www.oninit.com/home/disclaimer.php > > =========================================================================================== > >

InDeep wrote: > Art, > > I realize you may not be able to answer till next week, so I'll post now and > await your response this coming week. I can't think of anyone more intensely > connected with Informix as an end-user, customer, and developer. > > What do you see as the single biggest reason for DB2 receding and Informix > taking the lead? > Dear In: IDS is simpler to implement and configure initially (one process to kick off - one configuration file to edit) simpler to program for (no projects or groups or whatever they're called in DB2, no deciding whether or how to optimize or when), simpler to tune, and performance blows the socks off DB2 in every application zone except hard core large data warehousing. What's not to like? It took IBM a long time to realize this, but, now that they have, they've gotten the idea "why work hard to try to convert Orable and MS SQL Server users to DB2 when IDS converts them without trying". Art S. Kagel Oninit > -ID- > > Art S. Kagel (Oninit) wrote: > >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> Fernando Nunes wrote: >>> >>> >>>> mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 28, 11:28 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Not that I'm flaming certain marketing folks within the IM pillar. >>>>>>> They >>>>>>> have their hands tied and are trying to do things that they can't do >>>>>>> "through channels". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why does it never occur to this group that IBM is not a stupid company >>>>>> and is doing precisely what it decided to do when it acquired >>>>>> Informix. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may not like it that your personal playtoy is where it is. But IBM >>>>>> didn't acquire Informix because it saw a great strategic opportunity >>>>>> in having a second, competing, database product. >>>>>> >>>>>> In all of the years Informix has been an IBM product the behavior of >>>>>> IBM has been consistent. And consistency is a clear indication that >>>>>> they are perfectly pleased with where things are. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Daniel A. Morgan >>>>>> University of Washington >>>>>> damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Well said Daniel. I was there from the start - on the Informix team, >>>>> writing a Redbook to help people transition from IDS to DB2 (we told >>>>> them it wouldn't happen), and on the Worldwide team that did the IDS >>>>> 10 tour(s). I agree about the consistency from IBM, whether we like it >>>>> or not. I personally know that the initial plan was to move all IDS >>>>> customers to DB2. That became clear over time that it wasn't going to >>>>> happen, so everything started to change. Slowly, but it did. One of >>>>> our poster-people (all pun intended) said that "Janet couldn't utter >>>>> IDS"...well - I stood in Tokyo on the same stage with Janet - and all >>>>> I talked about was IDS. So did Janet. At that point, it wasn't clear >>>>> to all that IDS was here to stay, but tide was starting to turn >>>>> already. IBM HAS adopted IDS as the OLTP engine - that has been made >>>>> clear. This is a HUGE victory considering one of my first goals handed >>>>> down by mgmt was to "help the IDS customers understand the value of >>>>> transititioning to DB2." Of course, I didn't do that at all. All I >>>>> said in the 18 cities tour I did right after the acquisition was >>>>> "learn as much as you can about DB2, and then you can make an educated >>>>> decision." Wasn't exactly what was wanted, but as always it was >>>>> honest, technically pure, and gave the customers credit and respect >>>>> for what they have learned (and loved) about the IDS architecture over >>>>> the years. >>>>> >>>>> Mark Scranton >>>>> Xtivia Inc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> After reading your post I have the clear feeling that something has >>>> changed... >>>> DA said exactly the opposite. And of course, people changed... >>>> Anyway... My point it that things changed... and they are changing... >>>> and the product is changing... >>>> But of course, by DA point of view, we should not be talking about >>>> Informix as a product by now... It should have been gone a few years >>>> ago... Keep trying... But to be successful you should bring Oracle >>>> customers here... I'd say only them will believe you by now... >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards. >>>> >>>> >>> No I didn't. The point of the acquisition had nothing to do with >>> IBM wanting, or needing, a second RDBMS product and on that we are >>> in full agreement. >>> >>> IBM didn't change its mind on that either. I decided it was better >>> to placate unhappy Informix licensees than to lose them all to >>> Microsoft and Oracle because they sure weren't switching to DB2. >>> >>> We are still in placate-them mode today. Want to see how it works? >>> Look at Oracle's purchase of rdb. Oracle bought it when? >>> >>> >> Daniel, >> >> And there's the difference. Oracle bought RDB when DEC went belly up in >> what 1994? They did what with it? Nothing. IB there have been two bug >> patches in the intervening 14 years. IBM could have done that with 7.31 >> and 9.30. Both would be rock solid nearly bug free technology by now. >> They didn't. What IBM ended up doing was making minor enhancements to >> 7.31 and to make many more innovative feature additions to IDS 9+ than >> it has to DB2, indeed WAY more than Oracle did for 9g, 10g & 11g (BTW, >> an aside, what's the 'g' for? Good enough? Give us more $$? Dunno.) >> That's not placating the licensees. That's returning a product to the >> technological leadership it was beginning to show before Phil told the >> world not to buy any more IDS until 9.xx was stable. We listened, sales >> tanked, and the accountants got creative. But that's ancient history >> and we were speaking about recent events. >> >> Daniel, since you graced us a while ago with the OH so very wrong >> prediction that IDS would be dead in the marketplace by 2006 <sniggers>, >> I'll also go out on a limb and make a prediction. Who knows you may >> even get the chance to snigger at me in a few years. This is not based >> on any inside knowledge, just my own observations. By the end of 2010, >> DB2 LUW will be the legacy product and IDS will be IBM's primary RDBMS >> on those platforms. IDS will have near 100% client compatibility with >> DB2 LUW making DB2 redundant. My prediction and we only have to wait >> two years or less to see it's verity or fallacy. Am I a prophet or >> charlatan or am I simply hoping that I've provided a self fulfilling >> prophesy? We'll see. >> >> Art S. Kagel >> Oninit >> >> >> >> =========================================================================================== >> >> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic >> communications disclaimer: >> http://www.oninit.com/home/disclaimer.php >> >> =========================================================================================== >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.

"Art S. Kagel (Oninit)" <art@oninit.com> wrote in message news:mailman.590.1204502809.20610.informix-list@iiug.org... > It took IBM a long time to realize this, but, now that they have, they've > gotten the idea "why work hard to try to convert Orable and MS SQL Server > users to DB2 when IDS converts them without trying". "A pint of what Mr Kagel's drinking, please!" No harm in wishing it, Art, but I hardly think we're there yet.