Re: As the markets tank... Some Benchmark Stuff to distract you fromthe collapse...

"in the heart of kook and redneck country, St. Louis, Mo." er...you left out the murderers. Two or tree homeys get a cap popped in der asses ever nite on the norf side. <word> --- On Thu, 10/2/08, InDeep <indeep@indeep.com> wrote: > From: InDeep <indeep@indeep.com> > Subject: Re: As the markets tank... Some Benchmark Stuff to distract you fromthe collapse... > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Cc: informix-list@iiug.org > Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 6:06 PM > Campbell, John (GE Money) wrote: > > > > I will never understand this worship of Clinton. > > Me either. I didn't particularly care for the guy, but > care even less for > the ultra right wing religious kooks we have in the center > of this country, > now even at this late date too dumb to know who to vote for > without taking > direction from their pastor or their republican car > salesman. > > Interestingly enough the Palin debate takes place in the > heart of kook > and redneck country, St. Louis, Mo. Remember we had our > Atty General > John Ashcroft from Missouri. Washington University, where > this latest > round will go down is somewhat of an intellectual oasis, > considered by many > to be the Harvard of the midwest. Ironic that Palin will > have her 15 mins > here, on any other occasion she would be irrelevant. > > > > He was an > > embarrassment. He was caught with his pants down in > front of the world. > > And then he made it even worse by telling those > ridiculous, > > unbelievable, transparent lies - with Hillary standing > by her man. And > > of course the "other side" had to express > their righteous indignation to > > the world on the 6 o'clock news. When it comes to > policy, isn't there a > > delay. I believe many of the pieces of the great > 'Clinton' economy were > > already in place from previous administrations. He was > smart enough not > > to screw it up and took full and sole credit for it. > Nobody, so far, can > > give any specific examples of his policies that > brought about his > > miracle. > > Yeah maybe so. But at least we could travel outside the US > and not have > to hang our heads in shame telling people where we came > from. The rest > of the world loved Bill. And they love Obama. GW? the > laughing stock of > the rest of the world, along with his sinister dr evil > dickhead cheney. > > > > And some of his policies are coming back to bite us > now. We > > know what the free trade agreement has done (and is > still doing) for > > blue collar America. This was hailed as one of his > greatest achievements > > - screwing the middle class that he promised to > assist. Didn't he > > normalize trade with Walmart oops I mean China? In > the beginning, we > > were gonna outsource to third world countries all of > the drudgery that > > Americans are too proud to do now and keep the > intellectual jobs. Since > > I'm in IT, I'm really glad that wasn't > just a huge load! And these same > > people that worship Clinton forgive and forget his > very public and > > adolescent transgressions but hold others to a higher > moral standard. > > He's great to impersonate. > > > And religion - please - if you believe in God then you > are considered > > some type of moron or superstitious fool. The only > religion that is > > tolerated now is the kind you can cast off if it > becomes inconvenient > > and put it back on again for the sake of appearances - > just make up the > > rules as you go and don't offend anyone. Hillary > ssid she would not let > > her religion get in the way of science. I believe > embryonic stem cell > > research for Michael J. Fox was the science in vogue > at that moment. I > > was eating lunch with some people who proudly > proclaimed the new liberal > > mantra "I believe in science". I thought > "cool maybe we can have an > > interesting discussion or debate - maybe I'll > learn something". It was > > an election year so I mentioned supply-side economics. > They had never > > heard of it. So much for economics - perhaps it's > a discipline and not a > > science. I asked "Then how do you decide who gets > your vote?" One of > > them voted for Clinton because he looked better in a > suite; another > > voted for him because he resembled JFK. Apparently, > its not necessary > > to apply any scientific process or logical reasoning > to "believe in > > science". All you have to do is get on the > bandwagon and make fun of > > "the religious right". I seem to be the only > one to remember the 70's. > > I remember the '70s... it was a good time... got really > good smoke back > then but a lot less potent than now, man the stuff now is > wow. Or is it > just me? *<8o) > > There is a profound difference between being religious and > being stupid. > You can be spiritual without being stupid too. You can be > liberal, which > under libertarian thinking makes you a "classical > liberal" or basically > someone who believes "live and let live". You > want to worship and be > religious? Great. Just don't cram it down other > people's throat or run > the government with it. > > > > > The new ice age was coming because the greenhouse > gasses were blocking > > the sun. So we put catalytic converters on vehicles > and passed some > > progressive legislation that the automotive industry > can never live up > > to. Same panic and rhetoric as now except they have > completely reversed > > their position on climate change. (Which really > bolsters my confidence > > in them 100 percent!) And Al Gore, who doesn't > even practice what he > > preaches, has somehow become their leader. What I > remember about the S&L > > bailout - those poor bankrupt bastards only got to > keep one mansion and > > one mercedes. What a sacrifice! (What would happen if > they were actually > > poor for one week or even a day?) And Bush has been an > utter and > > complete dissappointment. Judging by his spending, he > should've been in > > the pentagon. I won't even mention Iraq. > > FWIW, my son will NOT be going to IRAQ. I told him to skip > on up to Canada > until this ridiculous war is over if he is pressed into > service. There is no > honor in fighting and dieing in a war that has been > COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS, > and our boys are dieing FOR NOTHING BUT OIL AND RICH > PEOPLE. They can sucker > other people into this fight, my son will be sitting this > one out. All that > god and apple pie nonsense has ruined our national > reputation, our standing, > and made us look foolish and uneducated to the rest of the > world. We could > have handled IRAQ without lifting a single rifle. > > > I looked up inept in the > > dictionary and found a picture of Bush - Cheney was > listed as a synonym. > > Yep we almost done with these kooky right wing jackasses > who want to go to > war with everybody. > > > I hesitate to bail o

Jerry Hamilton wrote: > "in the heart of kook and redneck country, St. Louis, Mo." > > er...you left out the murderers. Two or tree homeys get a cap popped in der asses ever nite on the norf side. <word> > > I was born in St. Louis...grew up in St Louis County... Doesn't sound like the town changed much in the past 30 years... Regarding the debate, Palin sounded like the EverReady Bunny, geezuz, she must have been on speed or something. Didn't even want to debate, and the moderator IFill was a disaster. IFill asked one question, then no rebuttal, ask another question, no rebuttal. The Palin would just spew stuff. Glad I smoked before the debate, I never laughed so hard, what a mess. Anyway... we just heard that the bailout was passed... Corporate America may now continue offshoring jobs, and raping the middle class with more of the same shit different day.

On Oct 3, 1:33 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > Anyway... we just heard that the bailout was passed... Corporate America may now continue > offshoring jobs, and raping the middle class with more of the same shit different day. You need to cut down on your smoking. Hows this for irony: Obama says he's not going to raise individuals taxes. Instead he'll raise the taxes on corporations. The corporations then raise their prices and reduce US workforce to offset those new taxes. So what you have is Joe 6-pack consumer earning the same (if he still has a job) but paying more, putting him deeper in the hole. Not to mention the loop holes that exist which will still allow the larger companies to not pay as much in taxes as the SMB companies. The point is that you can't win. Remember that you vote for the President, and not the vice-president. As much as people mock Palin, if you elect Obama, you're putting a Palin equivalent in the President's chair to begin with. Sorry but Obama didn't back down from his statements about meeting with anyone directly and that flys in the face of good diplomacy. Even Kissenger nailed him on that. Its yet again a lose / lose political race and the bottom line, who's finger do you want on the button?

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 3, 1:33 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > >> Anyway... we just heard that the bailout was passed... Corporate America may now continue >> offshoring jobs, and raping the middle class with more of the same shit different day. > > You need to cut down on your smoking. > > Hows this for irony: > > Obama says he's not going to raise individuals taxes. Instead he'll > raise the taxes on corporations. > The corporations then raise their prices and reduce US workforce to > offset those new taxes. Sorry but that's nonsense. Two-thirds of corporations in the US pay no taxes. Zero. Zilch. Nada. A null set. For those that do yes they will charge consumers more. But they will only charge consumers who have money to buy things so again the burden is passed to those most able to pay. And not one of them will hurt themselves by laying off a single employee. Corporations, even small one's like mine, do not commit suicide by eliminating employees except when sales fall. But I do like the ring of "no new taxes." Of then I also like a free lunch. -- Daniel A. Morgan

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 3, 1:33 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > >> Anyway... we just heard that the bailout was passed... Corporate America may now continue >> offshoring jobs, and raping the middle class with more of the same shit different day. > > You need to cut down on your smoking. > Actually I'm pretty low dose. *<8o) > Hows this for irony: > > Obama says he's not going to raise individuals taxes. Instead he'll > raise the taxes on corporations. ( this is long-winded but stay with it, it's good ) This is a red herring. I own two businesses, one is doing well, the other is new, about to go live. Both businesses offer me expenses that I will never find under W-2 work--in the US W-2 is the typical employee compensation. So I can expense a lot of things under my small business that I could never do as just a W-2. I've moved into a corporate model specifically because of the way I can expense EVERYTHING because of the the way corporate taxes allow expenses. I lease my cars, I rarely buy equipment I can lease, and I buy only what I can expense and write off. I only put on credit what I know I can afford. We sat out the bubble, and even though it's not much, we have cash, and our credit is good. It's also about the broken job environment--it's all trickle down, right? Corporate America with the IBMs and other big companies could care less about their employees to the extent that they are doing everything they can to offshore the work that makes them get rich. They want people to help them get rich, but they don't want anyone working and helping them to participate in the wealth. This is about as greedy and arrogant as it gets. Do I like doing things this way? No. But I've learned that you can't complain about the system, you've got to find ways to exploit it and get ahead of it since you only get one lifetime to try to build a life and take care of your family. I don't run a business because it's hip, or because I really care about being a business owner, I'm simply trying to make money and protect it from the government the best way I know how. The reality is, most accounting done in this country has little to do with business operations, and more to do with keeping the IRS at bay. If you didn't have to pay taxes do you think a lot of small business would even care about a lot of accounting. No. The _IRS_ is the true problem that neither party is willing to acknowledge because it alone allows continued unchecked spending by the Fed. If there were no IRS or W-2 taxes, believe me the small market business climate in this country would explode with innovation. 'Joe Sixpack', who operates his or her own small business out of their garage are today operating at risk of losing everything because of the way the IRS attaches liens and terrorizes people--extorts them--into paying taxes. So this stifles a lot of people from wanting to even get in the American game of capitalism. The very incubation of the small market business is what put the US at the top, but the tax system in this country has pretty much stifled small startups because the entry cost is considered too high of a risk by the majority of people out there, many who are not educated enough on how to run a business--which again is more about how to avoid the IRS from killing your business before you ever get it going. People are worn down I'm convinced, and it's just easier to stay an employee, and tough it out. You will find however at the lower strata of the economy, the lower class, a _huge_ cash economy that is flouting the IRS and doing business outside the classic 'retail' model. This class of business operates typically without credit, is all cash, and does quite well. Nay I say, the solution was correctly positioned by the Huckster, unfortunately he scared people with his consumption-based tax and didn't explain it in simple terms. The fed would probably make more money off of say a flat <= 10% than any other scheme they could come up with. Huckster did the unthinkable, he used 15-20%, which killed it in most peoples' minds. They couldn't get past the basics because he couldn't explain it. Consumption tax vs performance-tax is fair, and basically isn't directed at individuals but more at consumers. So if you consume more, yes, you will pay more taxes, but it's all about living within your means and accepting the tax at the register. We already accept a sales tax, the consumption-based federal tax would work the same way. But until people are really ready to accept that instead of just laying down year after year for income tax things will stay the same. I am convinced that the fed would get MORE money at 7% or 8 % than they will ever get off the income tax. It's amazing how convoluted the income tax is today, yet nobody in congress wants to give it up. A person who spends a lot will indeed pay a lot more taxes, but they would anyway under the current sales tax in any state right now. When you come to Florida, from where-ever it is, you may end up renting a car, and driving on a turnpike. While the Florida turnpike itself has not been engineered the best in all areas, it does offer a fair use, those that use it pay for it. It's fair because when somebody comes from Europe or Texas they pay fair use, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. The fed needs to be more creative about fair taxes, but it's easier to keep the income tax, because it's already in place, and is an endless deep pocket of free money for Congress to spend unchecked untold amounts of money. We see generational indoctrination of the income tax as the only way the fed can raise money. If they really were creative, a fair, consumption-based tax would probably make more money and it would not have to be a political football every election. It would also take the yoke off the average worker, and the message is clear, you keep everything you earn, the _REAL_ American dream. > The corporations then raise their prices and reduce US workforce to > offset those new taxes. So what you have is Joe 6-pack consumer > earning the same (if he still has a job) but paying more, putting him > deeper in the hole. Not to mention the loop holes that exist which > will still allow the larger companies to not pay as much in taxes as > the SMB companies. > Corporate tax laws are geared toward helping a typical threshold-of-earnings company that is usually large and has a well-establish base of earnings, allowing them to basically pay nothing. The bigger the better. Kind of like comparing a jet to a bi-plane. The jet requires a lot more speed and power to work than the bi-plane, but you shouldn't have to have a jet to fly. Small business should be allowed the same breaks big businesses are allowed. > The point is that you can't win. Actually we need somebody to send my bill through congress, to eliminate the IRS and the income tax. > Remember that you vote for the President, and not the vice-president. > As much as people mock Palin, if you elect Obama, you're putting a > Palin equivalent in the President's chair to begin with. > Again, good point, but think outside the box. The real problems

DA Morgan wrote: > Sorry but that's nonsense. Two-thirds of corporations in the US pay > no taxes. Zero. Zilch. Nada. A null set. > > For those that do yes they will charge consumers more. But they will > only charge consumers who have money to buy things so again the > burden is passed to those most able to pay. Actually, they either offset it against their customers or their employees. Taking a cut in profits is a last resort. > And not one of them will > hurt themselves by laying off a single employee. Corporations, even > small one's like mine, do not commit suicide by eliminating employees > except when sales fall. > What? Are you fucking mad? Did you miss the last couple of years' outsourcing? Corporations exist to create profit for shareholders. Employees are a secondary concern. > But I do like the ring of "no new taxes." > Of then I also like a free lunch. > Something which I am sure you get a lot of, as an Oracle shill. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Sorry but that's nonsense. Two-thirds of corporations in the US pay >> no taxes. Zero. Zilch. Nada. A null set. >> >> For those that do yes they will charge consumers more. But they will >> only charge consumers who have money to buy things so again the >> burden is passed to those most able to pay. > > Actually, they either offset it against their customers or their > employees. Taking a cut in profits is a last resort. Which means the nonsense about laying off workers and the entire trickle-down theory is unadulterated poppycock. No company lays off workers because of increased taxes. Were that true there wouldn't be any companies in Western Europe and the EU would be a collection of third-world nations. Reality is that which is real not that which is spin-doctored. Higher taxes in Europe vs the US. Deutsche Telecom bought T-Mobile not the other way around. There are many thousands of other examples to be cited if anyone wishes to let politics trump fact. >> And not one of them will >> hurt themselves by laying off a single employee. Corporations, even >> small one's like mine, do not commit suicide by eliminating employees >> except when sales fall. > > What? Are you fucking mad? Did you miss the last couple of years' > outsourcing? Corporations exist to create profit for shareholders. > Employees are a secondary concern. Absolutely. But that was not driven by taxes. >> But I do like the ring of "no new taxes." >> Of then I also like a free lunch. > > Something which I am sure you get a lot of, as an Oracle shill. This year I have had more free lunches from IBM, including a boat cruise, than I've received from Oracle. It seems that part of what keeps some of you firmly attached to Informix is an inability to deal with reality. Fact 1: I don't take money from Oracle. Fact 2: Informix is dying. Fact 3: Your opinion of US politics is straight out of a PR playbook and does not match the facts on the ground. 2/3 of US corporations, if they had to pay a nominal tax of only $1.00 per year, would be able to claim a massive increase in their tax burden. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > >>> But I do like the ring of "no new taxes." >>> Of then I also like a free lunch. >>> >> Something which I am sure you get a lot of, as an Oracle shill. >> > > This year I have had more free lunches from IBM, including a boat > cruise, than I've received from Oracle. It seems that part of what > keeps some of you firmly attached to Informix is an inability to > deal with reality. > There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, Daniel. > Fact 1: I don't take money from Oracle. > I know you don't take money directly from Oracle, I've read the terms and conditions. But you are either a shill, pretending to be an impartial academic when you've signed a contract to promote Oracle, or you're a contract-breaker who pretends to be loyal to Oracle. Neither one particularly endears you to me. Either one marks you out as a shameless hypocrite. > Fact 2: Informix is dying. > If you say so, baby. I seem to recall some other pompous cocktrumpet called Daniel Morgan claiming that Informix would be dead by 2005. And it keeps refusing to die. "You still don't get it, do you? Informix will keep coming for you! That's what it does! It's *all* it does! You can't stop it! It'll wait for you! It's gonna reach down your throat and tear your fuckin' heart out!" And you ain't even no Sarah Connor. > Fact 3: Your opinion of US politics is straight out of a PR playbook > and does not match the facts on the ground. 2/3 of US > corporations, if they had to pay a nominal tax of only $1.00 > per year, would be able to claim a massive increase in their > tax burden. > Yeah, whatever. The fact of the matter is that a) governments create all these crazy tax loopholes because they're either lobbied to or fucking stupid; b) any business exists to maximise profits, whether it's through rent-seeking, tax-avoidance, or screwing its staff and / or customers. It's perfectly rational to do these things if it's legal and if everyone else is already doing it. Take away the opportunity and businesses will stop doing it. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> >>>> But I do like the ring of "no new taxes." >>>> Of then I also like a free lunch. >>>> >>> Something which I am sure you get a lot of, as an Oracle shill. >>> >> >> This year I have had more free lunches from IBM, including a boat >> cruise, than I've received from Oracle. It seems that part of what >> keeps some of you firmly attached to Informix is an inability to >> deal with reality. >> > There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, Daniel. >> Fact 1: I don't take money from Oracle. >> > I know you don't take money directly from Oracle, I've read the terms > and conditions. But you are either a shill, pretending to be an > impartial academic when you've signed a contract to promote Oracle, or > you're a contract-breaker who pretends to be loyal to Oracle. Neither > one particularly endears you to me. Either one marks you out as a > shameless hypocrite. > >> Fact 2: Informix is dying. >> > If you say so, baby. I seem to recall some other pompous cocktrumpet > called Daniel Morgan claiming that Informix would be dead by 2005. And > it keeps refusing to die. > > "You still don't get it, do you? Informix will keep coming for you! > That's what it does! It's *all* it does! You can't stop it! It'll wait > for you! It's gonna reach down your throat and tear your fuckin' heart > out!" > > And you ain't even no Sarah Connor. > >> Fact 3: Your opinion of US politics is straight out of a PR playbook >> and does not match the facts on the ground. 2/3 of US >> corporations, if they had to pay a nominal tax of only $1.00 >> per year, would be able to claim a massive increase in their >> tax burden. >> > Yeah, whatever. > > The fact of the matter is that a) governments create all these crazy tax > loopholes because they're either lobbied to or fucking stupid; b) any > business exists to maximise profits, whether it's through rent-seeking, > tax-avoidance, or screwing its staff and / or customers. > > It's perfectly rational to do these things if it's legal and if everyone > else is already doing it. Take away the opportunity and businesses will > stop doing it. Being an Oracle Ace does not require signing any document or making any promises with respect to editorial opinion. What I say about Oracle I truly believe and were I to wake up one morning and feel differently I could walk the 10-12 blocks to the main Microsoft campus and apply for a job there. Equally true my opinions about rdb, Informix, and Fox are my own. When I am with IBM I don't alter my opinion about DB2 either. Don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you is for sale. Government's in Western democracies are, at least in theory government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." When that no longer is the case then one might reasonably conclude that it is 1769 all over again. And look: Again we have a King George only this one is the second. Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > > Being an Oracle Ace does not require signing any document or making > any promises with respect to editorial opinion. What I say about > Oracle I truly believe and were I to wake up one morning and feel > differently I could walk the 10-12 blocks to the main Microsoft > campus and apply for a job there. Equally true my opinions about > rdb, Informix, and Fox are my own. When I am with IBM I don't alter > my opinion about DB2 either. Don't assume that everyone that > disagrees with you is for sale. > Yeah, whatever, Daniel. You keep telling yourself that. One day you might even be able to look at yourself in the mirror. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> >> Being an Oracle Ace does not require signing any document or making >> any promises with respect to editorial opinion. What I say about >> Oracle I truly believe and were I to wake up one morning and feel >> differently I could walk the 10-12 blocks to the main Microsoft >> campus and apply for a job there. Equally true my opinions about >> rdb, Informix, and Fox are my own. When I am with IBM I don't alter >> my opinion about DB2 either. Don't assume that everyone that >> disagrees with you is for sale. >> > Yeah, whatever, Daniel. You keep telling yourself that. One day you > might even be able to look at yourself in the mirror. > OTC, It may come as a surprise, but a lot of people don't even know that Informix is even a product, much less that it's a database engine. I know that it is hard to believe that, but sitting here way outside the Informix core, there ain't much going on with Informix unless you know it's even there. I know that it hurts, but that's reality. I know you don't like to use the job market as an indicator, but sheesh, I'd starve to death if I had to depend on Informix. Where is Informix? I'll have to admit I enjoy the sparring, but honestly, Oracle simply has more credibility than even IBM DB2, simply because Oracle has better brand recognition, known even by people who are only superficially connected with IT. Oracle is also diverse enough, and has a solid reputation in the Linux community. I don't see that with DB2 or FWIW Informix. Hardly anyone talks about DB2 that I know, most are all talking Linux and Oracle. I think Daniel and anyone else even hope that Informix will make it, but unless we see serious marketing it ain't gonna happen. I can offer up Postgres, GreenPlum, MySQL, and Oracle as solutions, but I can't do much with DB2 or Informix. I can't make money off of a product that has little to no marketing. The market is telling the truth, despite Daniel or even me spouting and spewing controversial remarks. I get occasional DB2 requests, but again I'd starve to death off of IBM. DB2 is still relatively unknown, you'll notice DB2 also has to be explained to people when there are press releases. I don't think it's impossible to see a future where even IBM hits hard times. IBM's product lineup is vague at best unless you are directly connected to their line-up, and a lot of the product line-up is fair game from the open source community as directly competing opportunities. Every single piece of IBM software has a direct counterpart in open source. This is a real problem if software and hardware were your core. IBM seems to be shifting away from software and hardware and instead going after professional services as its number one driver. They seem hell bent on using IGS and other means to earn money off of labor more than anything else. Even if this isn't true, it looks that way to me. The shift to a total Linux desktop for IBM employees and touting Linux are really a red herring, the real deal is all about shifting all of their major operations to India. All the evidence is there. IBM is really depending on massive, big-company money to stay afloat, cheap labor from offshoring, and a complete shift away from doing anything that shows they are even remotely interested in the small market business. They're not even doing benchmarks. I think to castigate Oracle people at this point is to miss the impending ice berg IBM is headed for. You will see in the coming weeks massive layoffs from IBM in the US and maybe even Europe. They will point to high labor costs, the artificial doom that Wall Street conspired, and a whole host of reasons why they have to cut labor everywhere except India, Viet Nam, Brazil, and any other country they can exploit cheap labor out of. Oracle on the other hand is doing great, and despite their product not being the most perfect, is generating a lot of work, and really, down at the street level is where most of us will have to make choices. They really have made some smart moves that have instilled a solid brand across a lot of markets, but even more, it's a solid marketing company that is driving world sales to new records. Most of the people that I know that use Oracle are just like me, they have families to feed. Believe all you want in Informix, I don't think it will be around much longer especially in light of how the financial markets have tanked. Now we'll see hunkering down, and layoffs, not new sales or even marketing of any kind, even for DB2.

On Oct 3, 4:25 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > > Its yet again a lose / lose political race and the bottom line, who's > > finger do you want on the button? > > I'd rather have Obama at this point, because the rest of the world likes > him, and since the world is now flat, he is the best choice.  I'm > actually hopeful that Biden will rise to being a better class of pitbull > that really represents the middle class too, since he came from the > middle class. Yeah, that's cause he's an idiot and a push over. Trust me, he's a groomed politico from the Chicago machine. He's one step above Dennis the Mennis Kucinich. aka "the boy mayor of Cleveland".

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 3, 4:25 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > >>> Its yet again a lose / lose political race and the bottom line, who's >>> finger do you want on the button? John McCain? He'll be dead soon from old age, or worse yet, on a respirator, deep in the bowels of the White House. The GOP will find a JM look-alike, and keep the real, comatose John McCain a secret. At the point where he actually expires, and Sarah Palin takes over, we'll be forced into Christian re-education camps, and most likely have to recite GW quotes. I'm confident we'll even see Alexander Haig come back and insist that everything is under control. Henry Kissenger will actually be running things, and spoon-feeding Chaney, who will soon also be on life support. >> I'd rather have Obama at this point, because the rest of the world likes >> him, and since the world is now flat, he is the best choice. I'm >> actually hopeful that Biden will rise to being a better class of pitbull >> that really represents the middle class too, since he came from the >> middle class. > > Yeah, that's cause he's an idiot and a push over. > > Trust me, he's a groomed politico from the Chicago machine. > > He's one step above Dennis the Mennis Kucinich. aka "the boy mayor of > Cleveland". > I thought you were more educated than that. Even Kooky Kucinich would make a better choice than McCain. At least he's willing and ready to let alien beings take over, something John McCain is unwilling to do. What it really boils down to is that we need a break from the success of the GOP, the accomplishments of GW are so overwhelming, it's hard to take any more of his greatness and success. Too much of that kind of success, it's unbearable. I'd rather take a break for a while, watch the Dems balance the budget and take a fair shot at restoring some of our rights. Who knows they may actually get something done now without excuses.

InDeep wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> Being an Oracle Ace does not require signing any document or making >>> any promises with respect to editorial opinion. What I say about >>> Oracle I truly believe and were I to wake up one morning and feel >>> differently I could walk the 10-12 blocks to the main Microsoft >>> campus and apply for a job there. Equally true my opinions about >>> rdb, Informix, and Fox are my own. When I am with IBM I don't alter >>> my opinion about DB2 either. Don't assume that everyone that >>> disagrees with you is for sale. >>> >>> >> Yeah, whatever, Daniel. You keep telling yourself that. One day you >> might even be able to look at yourself in the mirror. >> >> > > OTC, > > It may come as a surprise, but a lot of people don't even know that > Informix is even a product, much less that it's a database engine. I > know that it is hard to believe that, but sitting here way outside the > Informix core, there ain't much going on with Informix unless you know > it's even there. I know that it hurts, but that's reality. I know you > don't like to use the job market as an indicator, but sheesh, I'd starve > to death if I had to depend on Informix. Where is Informix? > I can remember having to say the same things about Informix even when they had market share much closer to Oracle's. Informix has NEVER been a recognised brand. > I'll have to admit I enjoy the sparring, but honestly, Oracle simply has > more credibility than even IBM DB2, simply because Oracle has better > brand recognition, known even by people who are only superficially > connected with IT. Oracle is also diverse enough, and has a solid > reputation in the Linux community. I don't see that with DB2 or FWIW > Informix. Hardly anyone talks about DB2 that I know, most are all > talking Linux and Oracle. I agree. It's a pain in the arse. > I think Daniel and anyone else even hope > that Informix will make it, but unless we see serious marketing it ain't > gonna happen. I can offer up Postgres, GreenPlum, MySQL, and Oracle as > solutions, but I can't do much with DB2 or Informix. I can't make money > off of a product that has little to no marketing. The market is telling > the truth, despite Daniel or even me spouting and spewing controversial > remarks. I get occasional DB2 requests, but again I'd starve to death > off of IBM. > There's a reason you'd starve off of IBM: IBM doesn't play in your market and you don't play in theirs. There are a handful of businesses in the UK who do nothing but DB2 and they are full-time flat out. But yes, I'm sure overall that Oracle has more people making money off providing services. Including IBM, who probably make more money off Oracle services than services for all their own database products combined. > DB2 is still relatively unknown, you'll notice DB2 also has to be > explained to people when there are press releases. I don't think it's > impossible to see a future where even IBM hits hard times. IBM's > product lineup is vague at best unless you are directly connected to > their line-up, and a lot of the product line-up is fair game from the > open source community as directly competing opportunities. > It was ever thus: IBM will not hit hard times for the reasons you mention. People in their target market know what they need to know. The problem is that IDS is not a natural fit for that market. > Every single piece of IBM software has a direct counterpart in open > source. This is a real problem if software and hardware were your core. > > Every single piece of Oracle software has a direct counterpart in open source too. Same for everyone. > IBM seems to be shifting away from software and hardware and instead > going after professional services as its number one driver. They seem > hell bent on using IGS and other means to earn money off of labor more > than anything else. Even if this isn't true, it looks that way to me. > The shift to a total Linux desktop for IBM employees and touting Linux > are really a red herring, the real deal is all about shifting all of > their major operations to India. All the evidence is there. > Actually, I think you'll find that India is about to start experiencing the receiving end of outsourcing as their prices are increasing. But that will be no consolation to us who have seen our jobs being outsourced, because they're not coming back. But I don't think you should worry too much, after all, most of IBM's DBA outsourcing is probably Oracle jobs. ;o) > IBM is really depending on massive, big-company money to stay afloat, > cheap labor from offshoring, and a complete shift away from doing > anything that shows they are even remotely interested in the small > market business. They're not even doing benchmarks. > Yep. Once again, I see this as a rational (excuse the pun!) business decision. Why do all that hard work when you can make good money without doing it? Why try to break a decades-old corporate culture? The more I think about it, the more I think that faux press release was a really good idea and, in my opinion, there's a couple of options: 1. IBM could let IDS turn into another IMS. I don't hear that this is happening. 2. IBM could start to market IDS, albeit not to the satisfaction of anyone here. 3. IBM could sell off IDS as part of a refocussing program. From what I hear from my contacts, IBM has made dozens of acquisitions since buying Informix. All those other acquisitions have been integrated into IBM product lines fairly quickly, IDS stands out like a bit of a sore thumb: it hasn't been subsumed into one of the other product sets quickly and from what I can see that's never going to happen. Of course, I don't know, there could many other products in the same boat, I'm just going by hearsay. But it would seem to me that if there are some "difficult" products, IBM at some point might consider flogging these sore thumbs off to the market as part of a rationalisation plan. It's what I would do if I wasn't maximising my ROI and it was diverting me from my core business market. But I would like to point out that this is just speculation on my part, I'm not even in the USA so I don't know what is going on in the corporate world there. I would not, for example, want Light Scans to think that I have any insider knowledge or anything. Although I'm sure my having said this will immediately provoke some sort of discussion. ;o) > faI think to castigate Oracle people at this point is to miss the > impending ice berg IBM is headed for. You will see in the coming weeks > massive layoffs from IBM in the US and maybe even Europe. They will > point to high labor costs, the artificial doom that Wall Street > conspired, and a whole host of reasons why they have to cut labor > everywhere except India, Viet Nam, Brazil, and any other country they > can exploit cheap labor out of. > I'm not castigating Oracle people. I'm castigating Daniel in his personal capacity for being a pompous hypocrite. And I can hardly see how IBM exercising sound business judgment to reduce costs is "heading for an iceberg". > Oracle on the other hand is doing great, and despite their prod

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > There's a reason you'd starve off of IBM: IBM doesn't play in your > market and you don't play in theirs. There are a handful of businesses > in the UK who do nothing but DB2 and they are full-time flat out. But > yes, I'm sure overall that Oracle has more people making money off > providing services. Including IBM, who probably make more money off > Oracle services than services for all their own database products combined. I can't believe that. I'm working in a pretty big market these days. I do get calls for DB2 on AIX, and it's legacy work. Typically I can tell that the recruiters calling are at the end of the long tail of candidates. The req has been open for a while, and they're grasping at the very edge of what the req is looking for, meaning, they're calling _me_ because they are out of other, 'more qualified' candidates--people who would fit the bill right down the line. I have had this happen for a large company as well as a small one, both were not finding DB2 people, and even worse, both were not willing to pay market rates--despite being in a pinch to find people. >> DB2 is still relatively unknown, you'll notice DB2 also has to be >> explained to people when there are press releases. I don't think it's >> impossible to see a future where even IBM hits hard times. IBM's >> product lineup is vague at best unless you are directly connected to >> their line-up, and a lot of the product line-up is fair game from the >> open source community as directly competing opportunities. >> > It was ever thus: IBM will not hit hard times for the reasons you > mention. People in their target market know what they need to know. The > problem is that IDS is not a natural fit for that market. The market being of course big fish. The SMB business as you and I both know is what propelled every single product in the database space. It's happening again, MySQL, even <gasp> Postgres, and yes even Oracle is reaching down into the SMB space. Why? Microsoft. The name says it all. SQL-Server is being touted again with new features, and something new all over again, complete with benchmarks. Even MySQL has benchmarks. As easy as it is to dismiss Gumby, he's right, the market pays attention to benchmarks. >> Every single piece of IBM software has a direct counterpart in open >> source. This is a real problem if software and hardware were your core. >> >> > Every single piece of Oracle software has a direct counterpart in open > source too. Same for everyone. But look at that. Oracle & Linux is a solid mindset. A client of mine recently had an issue with Oracle Apps, one of the apps would run on Linux but wasn't certified on Linux, only on Sun, AIX, HP. Management had a big enough stake in Oracle/Linux that they refused to allow a UNIX back in, they were willing to wait for the certification on Linux. So the reversal of fortunes is happening _now_ in the Linux space, and Oracle is doing a brilliant job of it, along with RedHat. It's a solid win, and for people like me, I'm as happy as a pig in poop for that. In fact in the hardware space I think blades are going to be even more popular, as they get better and cheaper. I recently had to work on several very costly HP systems that are _still_ being sold by HP, with cellular partitioning, and the customer was in huge remorse for wasting so much money on them, and getting horrible performance to boot. We're going to see a real shift now towards small iron, and even more consolidation. Blades, commodity hw, it's going to play an even bigger part. EMC should be shaking in their boots too. [...] > The more I think about it, the more I think that faux press release was > a really good idea and, in my opinion, there's a couple of options: (You should see the press release I didn't send it was even better, albeit a bit long-winded. Not all my work is good, sometimes I wish I wouldn't ramble on so much. *<8o) > 1. IBM could let IDS turn into another IMS. I don't hear that this is > happening. At lease IMS _was_ a market. > 2. IBM could start to market IDS, albeit not to the satisfaction of > anyone here. Not going to happen. Judging by even the total lack of participants here in c.d.i. there's just not much reason to increase marketing--what little there may be. > 3. IBM could sell off IDS as part of a refocussing program. > We could only hope. *<8o) > From what I hear from my contacts, IBM has made dozens of acquisitions > since buying Informix. All those other acquisitions have been integrated > into IBM product lines fairly quickly, IDS stands out like a bit of a > sore thumb: it hasn't been subsumed into one of the other product sets > quickly and from what I can see that's never going to happen. Of course, > I don't know, there could many other products in the same boat, I'm just > going by hearsay. But it would seem to me that if there are some > "difficult" products, IBM at some point might consider flogging these > sore thumbs off to the market as part of a rationalisation plan. It's > what I would do if I wasn't maximising my ROI and it was diverting me > from my core business market. > Exactly why I'm saying that there won't be any marketing for Informix now. If there was anything before the tanking, I can't imagine anything now. > But I would like to point out that this is just speculation on my part, > I'm not even in the USA so I don't know what is going on in the > corporate world there. I would not, for example, want Light Scans to > think that I have any insider knowledge or anything. > > Although I'm sure my having said this will immediately provoke some sort > of discussion. ;o) >> faI think to castigate Oracle people at this point is to miss the >> impending ice berg IBM is headed for. You will see in the coming weeks >> massive layoffs from IBM in the US and maybe even Europe. They will >> point to high labor costs, the artificial doom that Wall Street >> conspired, and a whole host of reasons why they have to cut labor >> everywhere except India, Viet Nam, Brazil, and any other country they >> can exploit cheap labor out of. >> > I'm not castigating Oracle people. I'm castigating Daniel in his > personal capacity for being a pompous hypocrite. And I can hardly see > how IBM exercising sound business judgment to reduce costs is "heading > for an iceberg". We'll see in the next few weeks as IBM and other Fortune 100s being the slide. More layoffs, more downsizing, more shifting to developing nations, it's coming. >> Oracle on the other hand is doing great, and despite their product not >> being the most perfect, is generating a lot of work, and really, down at >> the street level is where most of us will have to make choices. They >> really have made some smart moves that have instilled a solid brand >> across a lot of markets, but even more, it's a solid marketing company >> that is driving world sales to new records. Most of the people that I >> know that use Oracle are just like me, they have families to feed. >> > Yep. And it's true that Oracle is the database that will keep food on > the table in more houses than Informix, and that wou

InDeep wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> There's a reason you'd starve off of IBM: IBM doesn't play in your >> market and you don't play in theirs. There are a handful of businesses >> in the UK who do nothing but DB2 and they are full-time flat out. But >> yes, I'm sure overall that Oracle has more people making money off >> providing services. Including IBM, who probably make more money off >> Oracle services than services for all their own database products combined. >> > > I can't believe that. I'm working in a pretty big market these days. I do > get calls for DB2 on AIX, and it's legacy work. Typically I can tell that > the recruiters calling are at the end of the long tail of candidates. The > req has been open for a while, and they're grasping at the very edge of what > the req is looking for, meaning, they're calling _me_ because they are out of > other, 'more qualified' candidates--people who would fit the bill right down > the line. I have had this happen for a large company as well as a small one, > both were not finding DB2 people, and even worse, both were not willing to > pay market rates--despite being in a pinch to find people. > > What can't you believe? That there are a handful of businesses making money off nothing but DB2, or that IBM makes more money from Oracle services than from all their own databases combined? >>> DB2 is still relatively unknown, you'll notice DB2 also has to be >>> explained to people when there are press releases. I don't think it's >>> impossible to see a future where even IBM hits hard times. IBM's >>> product lineup is vague at best unless you are directly connected to >>> their line-up, and a lot of the product line-up is fair game from the >>> open source community as directly competing opportunities. >>> >>> >> It was ever thus: IBM will not hit hard times for the reasons you >> mention. People in their target market know what they need to know. The >> problem is that IDS is not a natural fit for that market. >> > > The market being of course big fish. The SMB business as you and I both > know is what propelled every single product in the database space. It's > happening again, MySQL, even <gasp> Postgres, and yes even Oracle is > reaching down into the SMB space. Why? Microsoft. The name says it all. > SQL-Server is being touted again with new features, and something new > all over again, complete with benchmarks. Even MySQL has benchmarks. As > easy as it is to dismiss Gumby, he's right, the market pays attention to > benchmarks. > > Yes, of course. The SMB business exists in IBM, but they define SMB as "anything that isn't our existing customer base." But that's not really what SMB is. >>> Every single piece of IBM software has a direct counterpart in open >>> source. This is a real problem if software and hardware were your core. >>> >>> >>> >> Every single piece of Oracle software has a direct counterpart in open >> source too. Same for everyone. >> > > But look at that. Oracle & Linux is a solid mindset. A client of mine > recently had an issue with Oracle Apps, one of the apps would run on Linux > but wasn't certified on Linux, only on Sun, AIX, HP. Management had a big > enough stake in Oracle/Linux that they refused to allow a UNIX back in, they > were willing to wait for the certification on Linux. So the reversal of > fortunes is happening _now_ in the Linux space, and Oracle is doing a > brilliant job of it, along with RedHat. It's a solid win, and for people > like me, I'm as happy as a pig in poop for that. In fact in the hardware > space I think blades are going to be even more popular, as they get better > and cheaper. I recently had to work on several very costly HP systems that > are _still_ being sold by HP, with cellular partitioning, and the customer > was in huge remorse for wasting so much money on them, and getting horrible > performance to boot. We're going to see a real shift now towards small > iron, and even more consolidation. Blades, commodity hw, it's going to > play an even bigger part. EMC should be shaking in their boots too. > > [...] > > >> The more I think about it, the more I think that faux press release was >> a really good idea and, in my opinion, there's a couple of options: >> > > (You should see the press release I didn't send it was even better, albeit > a bit long-winded. Not all my work is good, sometimes I wish I wouldn't > ramble on so much. *<8o) > > Really? :o) >> 1. IBM could let IDS turn into another IMS. I don't hear that this is >> happening. >> > > At lease IMS _was_ a market. > ? > >> 2. IBM could start to market IDS, albeit not to the satisfaction of >> anyone here. >> > > Not going to happen. Judging by even the total lack of participants here > in c.d.i. there's just not much reason to increase marketing--what little > there may be. > > We'll just have to see. I hear "rumours and gossips" that things might be happening, but who knows. >> 3. IBM could sell off IDS as part of a refocussing program. >> >> > > We could only hope. *<8o) > > >> From what I hear from my contacts, IBM has made dozens of acquisitions >> since buying Informix. All those other acquisitions have been integrated >> into IBM product lines fairly quickly, IDS stands out like a bit of a >> sore thumb: it hasn't been subsumed into one of the other product sets >> quickly and from what I can see that's never going to happen. Of course, >> I don't know, there could many other products in the same boat, I'm just >> going by hearsay. But it would seem to me that if there are some >> "difficult" products, IBM at some point might consider flogging these >> sore thumbs off to the market as part of a rationalisation plan. It's >> what I would do if I wasn't maximising my ROI and it was diverting me >> from my core business market. >> >> > > Exactly why I'm saying that there won't be any marketing for Informix now. > If there was anything before the tanking, I can't imagine anything now. > > >> But I would like to point out that this is just speculation on my part, >> I'm not even in the USA so I don't know what is going on in the >> corporate world there. I would not, for example, want Light Scans to >> think that I have any insider knowledge or anything. >> >> Although I'm sure my having said this will immediately provoke some sort >> of discussion. ;o) >> > > >>> faI think to castigate Oracle people at this point is to miss the >>> impending ice berg IBM is headed for. You will see in the coming weeks >>> massive layoffs from IBM in the US and maybe even Europe. They will >>> point to high labor costs, the artificial doom that Wall Street >>> conspired, and a whole host of reasons why they have to cut labor >>> everywhere except India, Viet Nam, Brazil, and any other country they >>> can exploit cheap labor out of. >>> >>> >> I'm not castigating Oracle people. I'm castigating Daniel in his >> personal capacity for being a pompous hypocrite. And I can hardly see >> how IBM exercising sound business judgment t

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> >> Being an Oracle Ace does not require signing any document or making >> any promises with respect to editorial opinion. What I say about >> Oracle I truly believe and were I to wake up one morning and feel >> differently I could walk the 10-12 blocks to the main Microsoft >> campus and apply for a job there. Equally true my opinions about >> rdb, Informix, and Fox are my own. When I am with IBM I don't alter >> my opinion about DB2 either. Don't assume that everyone that >> disagrees with you is for sale. >> > Yeah, whatever, Daniel. You keep telling yourself that. One day you > might even be able to look at yourself in the mirror. I will let others be the judge of that: http://www.psoug.org/mdm.html vs. http://bp3.blogger.com/_AyG15tuYiRY/SHObhDqetxI/AAAAAAAAAAM/C2Wj1VGwcLc/S220/it-pennywise-howling.jpg -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

InDeep wrote: > OTC, > > It may come as a surprise, but a lot of people don't even know that > Informix is even a product, much less that it's a database engine. I > know that it is hard to believe that, but sitting here way outside the > Informix core, there ain't much going on with Informix unless you know > it's even there. Sadly OTC InDeep is correct. A survey conducted of people in the industry under age 35 backs this up. The number of people in that age group that could distinguish between Ingres and Informix was only a few percent. The vast majority that recognized the product names thought both were gone. And OTC you are incorrect about where Informix was 15-20 years ago. In those days Informix was not only a well recognized brand name it was one that was highly respected. Something that didn't change until the introduction of data blades. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Every single piece of Oracle software has a direct counterpart in open > source too. That it total nonsense and if you don't know that you need to find another profession. You will not find open source counterparts to almost all of Oracle's features more recent than version 8i which is now more than a decade old. Show me the open source counterpart to RAC? Or Flashback Query? Or Transaction Backout? Or Flashback Archive? Or Real Application Testing? Or Data Vault and AuditVault? Or array processing (FORALL SAVE EXCEPTIONS)? Or AWR and ASH and the metric collections? Or almost all partitioning types? Heck open source can't even match the table and index types alone. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

InDeep wrote: > I recently had to work on several very costly HP systems that > are _still_ being sold by HP, with cellular partitioning, and the customer > was in huge remorse for wasting so much money on them, and getting horrible > performance to boot. We're going to see a real shift now towards small > iron, and even more consolidation. Blades, commodity hw, it's going to > play an even bigger part. EMC should be shaking in their boots too. EMC should be indeed. Here's part of the reason why: http://www.oracle.com/solutions/business_intelligence/exadata.html Can you say "Cloud computing?" If not perhaps this will help: http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/ The dinosaurs are extinct. Those that want to survive in our business need to live in the present. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 3, 4:25 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > >>> Its yet again a lose / lose political race and the bottom line, who's >>> finger do you want on the button? >> I'd rather have Obama at this point, because the rest of the world likes >> him, and since the world is now flat, he is the best choice. I'm >> actually hopeful that Biden will rise to being a better class of pitbull >> that really represents the middle class too, since he came from the >> middle class. > > Yeah, that's cause he's an idiot and a push over. > > Trust me, he's a groomed politico from the Chicago machine. Which is different from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal in what significant way. Get over it. Only very old children believe the Long Ranger is going to ride into town wearing a white hat. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > >> Every single piece of Oracle software has a direct counterpart in open >> source too. >> > > That it total nonsense and if you don't know that you need to find > another profession. You will not find open source counterparts to > almost all of Oracle's features more recent than version 8i which > is now more than a decade old. > > Show me the open source counterpart to RAC? > Or Flashback Query? > Or Transaction Backout? > Or Flashback Archive? > Or Real Application Testing? > Or Data Vault and AuditVault? > Or array processing (FORALL SAVE EXCEPTIONS)? > Or AWR and ASH and the metric collections? > Or almost all partitioning types? > Heck open source can't even match the table and index types alone. > Really, Daniel, I'm surprised at you. Including implementation-specific features as things that other products should offer. Not the sort of reasoning I'd expect from an impartial academic powerhouse. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> Being an Oracle Ace does not require signing any document or making >>> any promises with respect to editorial opinion. What I say about >>> Oracle I truly believe and were I to wake up one morning and feel >>> differently I could walk the 10-12 blocks to the main Microsoft >>> campus and apply for a job there. Equally true my opinions about >>> rdb, Informix, and Fox are my own. When I am with IBM I don't alter >>> my opinion about DB2 either. Don't assume that everyone that >>> disagrees with you is for sale. >>> >>> >> Yeah, whatever, Daniel. You keep telling yourself that. One day you >> might even be able to look at yourself in the mirror. >> > > I will let others be the judge of that: > http://www.psoug.org/mdm.html > I think this is more apt: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/Obnoxio/GC/jesusloves.jpg -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

On Oct 4, 4:12 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > Fact 2: Informix is dying. Uhm hate to break it to ya, Informix is dead and long gone. What you meant to say was that IDS was dying. IDS isn't dying. IDS is still growing and making money. That's the problem. In spite of the programs set in place by Janet before her departure, IDS is doing better than anyone anticipated. Its hard to kill a good product, even sans marketing and sales by IBM. I think that the truth that IBM isn't selling IBM is the 800 lb gorilla that no one wants to talk about or admit. Its kind of embarrassing when I've stated the obvious. IBM can't sell IDS because they don't know the product. The lack of SEs in the field is the most condemning evidence. IDS succeeds because of OEM and BP deals. IBM sells IDS through partners and the partners support their clients. That's pathetic. Its a great product, getting better each release, yet IBM doesn't fully support the product from a marketing and sales perspective. Personally I think its insane that IBM would leave money on the table. But that's Perna and now Ambush for ya! At least Ambush isn't trying to kill IDS like Janet.

On Oct 4, 9:10 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > > He's one step above Dennis the Mennis Kucinich. aka "the boy mayor of > > Cleveland". > > I thought you were more educated than that.  Even Kooky Kucinich would make a > better choice than McCain.  At least he's willing and ready to let alien > beings take over, something John McCain is unwilling to do. > LOL.. Naw. I lived through the boy Mayor in Cleveland. Trust me his fiscal policies caused the City of Cleveland to go in to default. It was the only city to go in to default since the depression. His ideas on foreign policy are laughable and scary. How he got elected to Congress is beyond me, although his district is mainly Polish. As to McCain, anyone who can survive the Hanoi Hilton shows that he has an inner strength and an incredible high tolerance to stress. Sure he may lose his temper, but he's a straight shooter. That means you can read him and know that if he says something, he means it. Obama? He's a product. The only good thing about this year's presidential race is that Tina Fey looks a lot like Palin and does a great parody. Personally I'd love to see Fey run for office. But I'm sure she's got too many skeletons in her closet. :-P

Stay tuned... it was already fun, now it's getting hilarious: http://www.keatingeconomics.com/ DA Morgan wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> On Oct 3, 4:25 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: >> >>>> Its yet again a lose / lose political race and the bottom line, who's >>>> finger do you want on the button? >>> I'd rather have Obama at this point, because the rest of the world likes >>> him, and since the world is now flat, he is the best choice. I'm >>> actually hopeful that Biden will rise to being a better class of pitbull >>> that really represents the middle class too, since he came from the >>> middle class. >> >> Yeah, that's cause he's an idiot and a push over. >> >> Trust me, he's a groomed politico from the Chicago machine. > > Which is different from this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five > or this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_Indian_lobbying_scandal > in what significant way. > > Get over it. Only very old children believe the Long Ranger is going to > ride into town wearing a white hat.

InDeep wrote: > Stay tuned... it was already fun, now it's getting hilarious: > > http://www.keatingeconomics.com/ > While of course, the Democrats have merely got sphincters of steel: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-democrat-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-crisis-949653.html -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com