Informix Roundup: 14 Nov 08

The wodka edition: http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/2008/11/informix-roundup-14-nov-2008.html -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:mailman.326.1226705564.874.informix-list@iiug.org... In your excellent Informix digest at http://obotheclown.blogspot.com you wrote: >> Craig S. Mullins talks out of his arse. Informix-Zone sets him straight >> ... >> An Open Letter to Craig S Mullins >> In a blog post, you made the following assertion: >> Informix, which was purchased by IBM, is still being maintained and >> marketed, but DB2 is obviously IBM's primary DBMS so I personally would >> not choose it for new work. Much as I wish it wasn't so, I think it's difficult as things stand to argue against the statement by Craig S Mullins. >> Craig, I have to disagree with your choice and correct you about "IBM's >> obvious primary DBMS". IBM has a different database strategy than you are >> portraying. It is no longer the strategy to lead with DB2 wherever >> possible, it is now the strategy to find which of IBM's database >> offerings best matches the customer's requirements. Informix is not only being enhanced dramatically (for example with MACH11) and actively marketed, but new customers are choosing Informix for its incredible scalibility, performance and low maintenance every day. Over 200 new ISV's have signed up with Informix this year along with hundreds of significant new customers. Revenue growth has been eye-watering for the last 11 quarters. This by no means denigrates DB2, which is an excellent database with a loyal and active user community and great sales; but to dismiss Informix out of hand for such a cursroy and invalid reason could prevent someone from making a business decision that could save them serious money while providing major competitive technology advantages. Have a look at how long it takes to set up a 4-way SDS cluster and then compare it with how long it takes to set up something similar from another vendor. Compare the ease of maintaining these and coding for them. Have a look at achieving the same transaction throughput on SMP as a popular alternative on half the hardware with half the energy costs. >> Now tell me that you wouldn't consider Informix seriously. All good points well made. But can you truly tell me that his original statement - "DB2 is obviously IBM's primary DBMS" - is wrong? And yes,I know that Informix insiders will whine, and point out that Informix is getting a little more of the marketing (not advertising) pie these days, and trot out the old canard that "IBM doesn't advertise products" (a lie; it *does* advertise DB2, in Blighty at least).

Captain Pedantic wrote: > All good points well made. But can you truly tell me that his original > statement - "DB2 is obviously IBM's primary DBMS" - is wrong? And yes,I > know that Informix insiders will whine, and point out that Informix is > getting a little more of the marketing (not advertising) pie these days, and > trot out the old canard that "IBM doesn't advertise products" (a lie; it > *does* advertise DB2, in Blighty at least). Well, *I* disagree with his statement, but I think the real problem here is that until IBM spends more on Informix in every possible way, until IBM ports Informix to z/OS native, until IBM sacrifices every aspect of its other business on the altar of Informix, there will *always* be some way of bitching that DB2 is more important than Informix. Some fuckers will not be satisfied until IBM changes its name from International Business Machines to Informix Software Limited, changes its stock symbol to IFMX and rearranges its entire business model to revolve around Informix. I personally find it rather tiresome that people will not applaud what has been achieved before saying "we want more", but choose instead to denigrate every step of what has been done with some sniping remark and a complaint that it's all a lie. If people want to make a business out of Informix, and want to make it easier to sell, they might consider that making positive observations out in the wild might be more useful than shitting on everything IBM does manage to achieve to make Informix successful. They might want to consider that by carping on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how useless IBM is and how they're buttfucking Informix at every turn and how they're being mean to Informix and how they're not treating it seriously, that they might, in fact, be undermining every effort that IBM makes to improve Informix's lot and doing Oracle's job for them. I'm not pointing any fucking fingers here, mind. -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:mailman.330.1226757119.874.informix-list@iiug.org... > Captain Pedantic wrote: > >> All good points well made. But can you truly tell me that his original >> statement - "DB2 is obviously IBM's primary DBMS" - is wrong? And yes,I >> know that Informix insiders will whine, and point out that Informix is >> getting a little more of the marketing (not advertising) pie these days, >> and trot out the old canard that "IBM doesn't advertise products" (a lie; >> it *does* advertise DB2, in Blighty at least). > > Well, *I* disagree with his statement, but I think the real problem here > is that until IBM spends more on Informix in every possible way, until IBM > ports Informix to z/OS native, until IBM sacrifices every aspect of its > other business on the altar of Informix, there will *always* be some way > of bitching that DB2 is more important than Informix. Some fuckers will > not be satisfied until IBM changes its name from International Business > Machines to Informix Software Limited, changes its stock symbol to IFMX > and rearranges its entire business model to revolve around Informix. > > I personally find it rather tiresome that people will not applaud what has > been achieved before saying "we want more", but choose instead to > denigrate every step of what has been done with some sniping remark and a > complaint that it's all a lie. > > If people want to make a business out of Informix, and want to make it > easier to sell, they might consider that making positive observations out > in the wild might be more useful than shitting on everything IBM does > manage to achieve to make Informix successful. > > They might want to consider that by carping on and on and on and on and on > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how useless IBM > is and how they're buttfucking Informix at every turn and how they're > being mean to Informix and how they're not treating it seriously, that > they might, in fact, be undermining every effort that IBM makes to improve > Informix's lot and doing Oracle's job for them. > > I'm not pointing any fucking fingers here, mind. Hey, I applaud what's been done. Things are better than they were. Let's all be thankful for that. Yes, I'd like more. I'd like to see more active promotion of Informix so it's on at least an equal footing with DB2. I didn't say that the recent extra promotional activity around Informix is "a lie" - it's quite plainly real and noticeable - I said that it's not true that IBM does not advertise DB2. Good point about the positivity. Poeple making a living out of Informix should indeed accentuate the positive. (I'm less convinced that they should unquestionably drink the Kool-Aid though). However I've heard a rumour that even some actual IBM employees lurk around on the newsgroup sniping away, which obviously if truw would be ten times more hypocritical! Back to the point: I don't think it's fair to tell Craig S Mullins that he's talking out of his arse. His is a very widely-held perception outside the immediate Informix community, and one which The Man on The Clapham Omnibus might arguably infer is fair comment from IBM's own positioning of the products. Instead of sniping at him it might be better if we all look at *why* he thinks what he thinks, and try our best to change the perception because, as Eric Herber says, there is a very strong *technical* case for considering Informix regardless.

Captain Pedantic wrote: > it might be better if we all look at > *why* he thinks what he thinks, and try our best to change the perception Craig S. Mullins makes a living as a DB2 consultant. He is, of course, going to adopt a more positive attitude towards DB2 and imply that DB2 is more important, because it's a commercially sensible attitude to adopt. I can understand the basis of his position that DB2 is more important to IBM, because it helps to protect his income. Whereas the position of someone who depends on IDS for his income arguing that DB2 is more important to IBM is somewhat less clear. -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Captain Pedantic wrote: > > Hey, I applaud what's been done. You do? Because I did a quick google and I didn't find shit. -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:mailman.331.1226759741.874.informix-list@iiug.org... > Captain Pedantic wrote: >> it might be better if we all look at *why* he thinks what he thinks, and >> try our best to change the perception > > Craig S. Mullins makes a living as a DB2 consultant. He is, of course, > going to adopt a more positive attitude towards DB2 and imply that DB2 is > more important, because it's a commercially sensible attitude to adopt. > > I can understand the basis of his position that DB2 is more important to > IBM, because it helps to protect his income. > > Whereas the position of someone who depends on IDS for his income arguing > that DB2 is more important to IBM is somewhat less clear. Your opinion on whether you believe DB2 to be IBM's flagship database, or Informix, or both are given equal billing should have nothing to do with from where your income is derived. I've worked with, and sell, both and think Informix is comfortably the superior product. I still don't believe they receive equal billing from the vendor though. That's what he said. Is he wrong in your opinion then?

Captain Pedantic wrote: > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.331.1226759741.874.informix-list@iiug.org... >> Captain Pedantic wrote: >>> it might be better if we all look at *why* he thinks what he thinks, and >>> try our best to change the perception >> Craig S. Mullins makes a living as a DB2 consultant. He is, of course, >> going to adopt a more positive attitude towards DB2 and imply that DB2 is >> more important, because it's a commercially sensible attitude to adopt. >> >> I can understand the basis of his position that DB2 is more important to >> IBM, because it helps to protect his income. >> >> Whereas the position of someone who depends on IDS for his income arguing >> that DB2 is more important to IBM is somewhat less clear. > > Your opinion on whether you believe DB2 to be IBM's flagship database, or > Informix, or both are given equal billing should have nothing to do with > from where your income is derived. Unless you are concerned that DB2 might not be IBM's flagship database any longer and your livelihood is at risk. :o) > I've worked with, and sell, both and think Informix is comfortably the > superior product. > I still don't believe they receive equal billing from the vendor though. > That's what he said. Is he wrong in your opinion then? In my opinion, DB2 has decades-worth of seeding into the DNA of IBM that is hard to undo, especially with IBM's fondness for shipping people around the company internally. In my opinion, there is a lot of cruft around that is quite hard to undo. I've worked in big companies and I've worked in small companies, and in big companies, not only do you have more politics to fight, but you also have more nooks and crannies where you have to dig around to fix things. And this latter problem, in my opinion, is why in five years' time we'll still have people moaning about bits of IBM's website that talk about Informix, but the URL still includes DB2. It's not that people don't want to fix these things, it's just that there are 50 bazillion things to fix and two people doing the fixing. And nobody knows where they all are. But, also in my opinion, money talks. And from what little I have been told (and not told) I think that Informix money is starting to become important and visible. From the things that I'm NOT being told (and possibly some personal optimism) I choose to infer that Informix is growing faster than DB2 LUW. Consequently, I choose to infer that DB2 LUW will become less important than Informix in future. What I do not have any idea of, is how much the DB2 z/OS market is worth. That could be a considerable mountain to climb before Informix is more important to IBM than DB2 overall. But these are my choices of belief. As others quite rightly point out, IBM doesn't break out the numbers, so I could be talking out of my arse. Which I'm sure we'll all agree is a talent that's not as rare as it should be. :o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Captain Pedantic wrote: > >> All good points well made. But can you truly tell me that his >> original statement - "DB2 is obviously IBM's primary DBMS" - is >> wrong? And yes,I know that Informix insiders will whine, and point >> out that Informix is getting a little more of the marketing (not >> advertising) pie these days, and trot out the old canard that "IBM >> doesn't advertise products" (a lie; it *does* advertise DB2, in >> Blighty at least). > > Well, *I* disagree with his statement, but I think the real problem here > is that until IBM spends more on Informix in every possible way, until > IBM ports Informix to z/OS native, until IBM sacrifices every aspect of > its other business on the altar of Informix, there will *always* be some > way of bitching that DB2 is more important than Informix. Some fuckers > will not be satisfied until IBM changes its name from International > Business Machines to Informix Software Limited, changes its stock symbol > to IFMX and rearranges its entire business model to revolve around > Informix. > It's even worse than that. IBM really stands for India Business Systems. Wait for the Ltd to follow. IBM doesn't really have a global technology presence anymore, they have a global offshoring image, and they are all about labor now, not technology. The proof is in their shitty combination of desktop products, and the absolutely depressing looking desktop they push out. IBM has lost their innovation in technology and is now only concerned about how they can push their shitty professional services with shitty software into developing countries at below-market wages with their corporate plantation mentality. > I personally find it rather tiresome that people will not applaud what > has been achieved before saying "we want more", but choose instead to > denigrate every step of what has been done with some sniping remark and > a complaint that it's all a lie. > The problem is, if you give .02 USD of applause, it takes the heat off of the dipshits like Ambush who want to do absolutely nothing to promote the product. Where is SE? What happened to MySQL ISAMs competition? Lost opportunity to compete directly with this product. And before you dismiss this by saying Sun lost money on MySQL, it hasn't done anything to the MySQL market itself, which is thoroughly in-trenched, and has no reason to lessen any time soon. In fact MySQL has a better than 50% chance to really take off now that many of its features and capabilities are good enough for most applications. > If people want to make a business out of Informix, and want to make it > easier to sell, they might consider that making positive observations > out in the wild might be more useful than shitting on everything IBM > does manage to achieve to make Informix successful. > Uhm yeah... That is based on the premise that people actually talk about Informix at all. Just because YOU work for IBM and feel compelled to defend it, you get paid to do that, I and any other non-IBMer are not. In fact, because of attrition, most up and coming managers these days don't even know what Informix is. That's not their fault. And WHY should I risk my family's income pushing something nobody has heard of? Most of the people I work with, work for, and speak to, are Indians. I work with a few Americans, but they don't know or care about a has-been called Informix. Sure, clap-clap-clap, applause for the great new IDS features, but if nobody knows about them, so what. There has to be a marketing effort, to date we have not seen that compared to other IBM products. I get partner emails, nothing in them about Informix. My conversation: "I used to work with Informix, but they went out of business. I used to be a Informix DBA, but there's no work out there for that, and these days you have to do more than just be a DBA. That's why I went into systems administration. I can support any of a number of database products, and Linux systems." I don't have anything to follow "Informix? what's that?", because nobody would care or understand why I would work with something that nobody knows or cares about. And to boot, they wouldn't understand the history of Informix and the arrogance that has kept this product back. > They might want to consider that by carping on and on and on and on and > on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on > and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how > useless IBM is and how they're buttfucking Informix at every turn and > how they're being mean to Informix and how they're not treating it > seriously, that they might, in fact, be undermining every effort that > IBM makes to improve Informix's lot and doing Oracle's job for them. > > I'm not pointing any fucking fingers here, mind. > Of course not, you're too busy calling the rest of the world a cunt for one reason or another. *<;o) You think people here are carping on and on, but at the same time have to recognize that if it were up to the spineless that change would never come. It's not the customer's or the end-user communities' fault that Informix isn't more well-known. Sure, get pissed off at us, vent your cunt anger at us, it's much easier than actually getting anything done to get Informix out there. It's easy to attack people that want success rather than attacking the problem, and actually pushing for change based on what outsiders want. I personally have always represented the end-user, and the customer, not Informix or IBM. My perspective is that the customer needs to be listened to, and _I_ adapt to what the customer wants, not holding fast to some arrogant ideals that the customer or end-user is incapable of knowing what is best or deserves better. Business drives technology not the other way around. Start selling Informix, you work for them not me. Stop blaming the customer base and the end-user base as if it's our fault that Informix isn't succeeding. Stop being such a cunt you fucking clown.

InDeep wrote: > > It's even worse than that. IBM really stands for India Business Systems. > Wait for the Ltd to follow. IBM doesn't really have a global technology > presence anymore, they have a global offshoring image, and they are all > about labor now, not technology. The proof is in their shitty combination > of desktop products, and the absolutely depressing looking desktop they > push out. IBM has lost their innovation in technology and is now only > concerned about how they can push their shitty professional services with > shitty software into developing countries at below-market wages with their > corporate plantation mentality. Yeah, whatever. > The problem is, if you give .02 USD of applause, it takes the heat off > of the dipshits like Ambush who want to do absolutely nothing to promote > the product. Where is SE? See, this is exactly what I said. You get somewhere with IDS and now someone's bitching about SE. You get one thing right and someone moans about the things that haven't been done yet or aren't that important anyway. SE is not a product critical to Informix's success. Yeah, there's lots of stuff that could be done with it, if you had a zillion people to do it. But if you've got limited resources, do you want to take IDS forward, or do you want to dilute the results with something else? If I said to you: "here's 10 people -- go out and sell Informix", how much of that effort would you "spend" on trying to sell IDS, and how much of that would you spend trying to sell SE? 20? 100? At what point are there enough people being chucked at it that you could afford to divert some of them at some of the things Oracle and Microsoft can do because they have 10,000 people who can contribute? > What happened to MySQL ISAMs competition? Who cares? Who's making money out of databases? Sun? Or is it Oracle, Microsoft and (God help me) IBM? > Uhm yeah... That is based on the premise that people actually talk about > Informix at all. Just because YOU work for IBM and feel compelled to > defend it, you get paid to do that, I and any other non-IBMer are not. But you DO fucking talk about it. You talk about it all the fucking time. You keep telling us how fucking wrong everything IBM does is, right before or right after you tell us how you don't work with Informix any more. How are you in any way different from Danny Boy Organ? I don't get paid to defend IBM. I choose to criticise IBM when they do something wrong, but I also choose to defend them on those rare occasions when they do something right. You are still living in Janet Perna's time. You're pissed off because IBM isn't sacrificing the rest of its multi-billion dollar business on the altar of Informix, which is EXACTLY what I said in my last post. IBM isn't going to fucking ever do that, no matter how much you bitch or I bitch, for that matter. > In fact, because of attrition, most up and coming managers these days > don't even know what Informix is. That's not their fault. And WHY should > I risk my family's income pushing something nobody has heard of? Most of > the people I work with, work for, and speak to, are Indians. I work with a > few Americans, but they don't know or care about a has-been called Informix. > Sure, clap-clap-clap, applause for the great new IDS features, but if nobody > knows about them, so what. There has to be a marketing effort, to date we > have not seen that compared to other IBM products. I get partner emails, > nothing in them about Informix. Really? I get partner emails that contain nothing BUT Informix. > My conversation: "I used to work with Informix, but they went out of business. > I used to be a Informix DBA, but there's no work out there for that, and these > days you have to do more than just be a DBA. That's why I went into systems > administration. I can support any of a number of database products, and Linux > systems." I don't have anything to follow "Informix? what's that?", because > nobody would care or understand why I would work with something that nobody > knows or cares about. And to boot, they wouldn't understand the history of > Informix and the arrogance that has kept this product back. Well, then, why not go forth into the lands that offer better opportunity and leave the rest of the world who ARE happily using Informix and buying it to get on with our lives? Then we'll all be happy. > You think people here are carping on and on, but at the same time have to > recognize that if it were up to the spineless that change would never come. > It's not the customer's or the end-user communities' fault that Informix isn't > more well-known. Sure, get pissed off at us, vent your cunt anger at us, it's > much easier than actually getting anything done to get Informix out there. Have you heard the expression "there's none so blind as he who will not see?" Informix IS getting out there. You're the one who is persisting in saying it isn't. It's not getting out there to YOUR PERSONAL satisfaction, and it's not doing so in a manner of which you approve. But it is getting out there, and I hate to tell you this, but Ambuj and Jerry Keesee and all the other people you're slagging off every time you grace us with your presence, are the people who are doing it. > It's easy to attack people that want success rather than attacking the problem, Yeah, whatever. I call three years of double digit growth success; you know, real actual money. I call growing faster than the market success, if that's what you call a problem, I'd like to hear your definition of success. > and actually pushing for change based on what outsiders want. I personally have Pushing for change on what outsiders want? You mean like what Daniel's Organ wants? Or Mark Townsend? Or Larry Ellison? How about Steve Ballmer? Should "Ambush" listen to them? They're all outsiders, after all, and all deeply interested in the market. > always represented the end-user, and the customer, not Informix or IBM. My > perspective is that the customer needs to be listened to, and _I_ adapt to what > the customer wants, not holding fast to some arrogant ideals that the customer > or end-user is incapable of knowing what is best or deserves better. Business > drives technology not the other way around. Start selling Informix, you work > for them not me. Stop blaming the customer base and the end-user base as if it's > our fault that Informix isn't succeeding. Stop being such a cunt you fucking clown. Don't worry, it's not your fault Informix isn't succeeding. I give you my personal assurance (for what *that* is worth!) that there is not a single person in the entire world who holds you responsible for Informix not succeeding. And I can also assure you that it is *definitely* not your fault that Informix IS succeeding. ;o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> >> It's even worse than that. IBM really stands for India Business Systems. >> Wait for the Ltd to follow. IBM doesn't really have a global technology >> presence anymore, they have a global offshoring image, and they are all >> about labor now, not technology. The proof is in their shitty >> combination >> of desktop products, and the absolutely depressing looking desktop they >> push out. IBM has lost their innovation in technology and is now only >> concerned about how they can push their shitty professional services with >> shitty software into developing countries at below-market wages with >> their >> corporate plantation mentality. > > Yeah, whatever. > >> The problem is, if you give .02 USD of applause, it takes the heat off >> of the dipshits like Ambush who want to do absolutely nothing to promote >> the product. Where is SE? > > See, this is exactly what I said. You get somewhere with IDS and now > someone's bitching about SE. You get one thing right and someone moans > about the things that haven't been done yet or aren't that important > anyway. > I can always count on you to totally miss the point. The point is, please don't miss it, here it comes... Informix has to compete and has to be a living product, not some figment of someones' imagination. The second I talk about Informix I have to be able to talk about something relevant to the market. Who uses Informix? Where? Why? How does it compare to MySQL? Oracle? Why use IDS and not these other products? There's nothing out there in trade magazines, no buzz. How does it compare to this product or that? Why should I as a developer or business use Informix? Where's the developer promotions? Where are the press releases? Where is the industry interest? Where are the vertical markets that "Choose Informix". Where are the promotional tie-ins to other products? NOWHERE. To say that it's just people bitching and not appreciating your noble efforts is to completely miss how simple the problem is, and how easy it could be fixed. Ambush sans IBM could easily fix the problem, it's just a matter of will. The problem for IBM is that it has outsiders more willing to see Informix succeed than the insiders. This was the same problem when Informix was on its own. Sad. Very Sad. Informix is doomed to be a legend in its own mind. That's all it will ever be. > SE is not a product critical to Informix's success. Yeah, there's lots > of stuff that could be done with it, if you had a zillion people to do > it. But if you've got limited resources, do you want to take IDS > forward, or do you want to dilute the results with something else? > It's a bit one-dimensional and incompetent isn't it to think that one product is all you can offer. Informix should not be 'a' choice, it should be the 'only' choice. But you have to think outside the IBM or even Informix box to understand that. You have to be practically forced to work without Informix for a period of time to understand how to look at the marketing problem. You can't help Informix if all you know is, well, Informix. I think even 10 years ago a lot of us were forced into this situation. The upside for us who were 'Informix' trained is that we could see the deficiencies in other products, unfortunately, Informix couldn't see its deficiencies in its management or marketing. Back then it was a very easy problem to fix, today, it is still an easy problem to fix, but there has to be a will to make that happen. There isn't any, so we're not going to see anything happen. Count on that. > If I said to you: "here's 10 people -- go out and sell Informix", how > much of that effort would you "spend" on trying to sell IDS, and how > much of that would you spend trying to sell SE? 20? 100? At what point > are there enough people being chucked at it that you could afford to > divert some of them at some of the things Oracle and Microsoft can do > because they have 10,000 people who can contribute? > Again, you are a one-trick-pony--er clown. You think only in context to IBM and ideas that are just IBM. You show how little you understand about what is happening in the market. You apologize for bad behavior and then blame outsiders for the problem. >> What happened to MySQL ISAMs competition? > > Who cares? Who's making money out of databases? Sun? Or is it Oracle, > Microsoft and (God help me) IBM? > MySQL will succeed with Sun or whoever. Sun has a lot of cash so even if MySQL cost them today, MySQL will get better, and it will continue to get better. MySQL is also a good choice in professional services, offering many times billable that is just as good or better than Oracle, yes even Oracle, and these MySQL projects are smoking with innovation, not just big accounting or shipping applications. Some very challenging applications are coming out of these projects, producing innovation that bubbles up to Oracle and other 'enterprise' products. This is what Informix did to get to the top back in the day. >> Uhm yeah... That is based on the premise that people actually talk about >> Informix at all. Just because YOU work for IBM and feel compelled to >> defend it, you get paid to do that, I and any other non-IBMer are not. > > But you DO fucking talk about it. You talk about it all the fucking > time. You keep telling us how fucking wrong everything IBM does is, > right before or right after you tell us how you don't work with Informix > any more. How are you in any way different from Danny Boy Organ? > > I don't get paid to defend IBM. I choose to criticise IBM when they do > something wrong, but I also choose to defend them on those rare > occasions when they do something right. > > You are still living in Janet Perna's time. You're pissed off because > IBM isn't sacrificing the rest of its multi-billion dollar business on > the altar of Informix, which is EXACTLY what I said in my last post. IBM > isn't going to fucking ever do that, no matter how much you bitch or I > bitch, for that matter. > >> In fact, because of attrition, most up and coming managers these days >> don't even know what Informix is. That's not their fault. And WHY >> should >> I risk my family's income pushing something nobody has heard of? Most of >> the people I work with, work for, and speak to, are Indians. I work >> with a >> few Americans, but they don't know or care about a has-been called >> Informix. >> Sure, clap-clap-clap, applause for the great new IDS features, but if >> nobody >> knows about them, so what. There has to be a marketing effort, to >> date we >> have not seen that compared to other IBM products. I get partner emails, >> nothing in them about Informix. > > Really? I get partner emails that contain nothing BUT Informix. > I get partner emails with all kinds of bullshit product information for Lotus ( gak! ) and Domino and DB2, never anything for Informix. EVER. >> My conversation: "I used to work with Informix, but they went out of >> business. >> I used to be a Informix DBA, but there's no work out there for that, >> and these@

InDeep wrote: > You say. When I see the market and developer community give a shit about > Informix--at least as much as MySQL or Postgres--then we'll see some success. > Until then it's all big in your mind and nowhere else... "I think the real problem here is that until IBM spends more on Informix in every possible way, until IBM ports Informix to z/OS native, until IBM sacrifices every aspect of its other business on the altar of Informix, there will *always* be some way of bitching that DB2 is more important than Informix. Some fuckers will not be satisfied until IBM changes its name from International Business Machines to Informix Software Limited, changes its stock symbol to IFMX and rearranges its entire business model to revolve around Informix." It's almost prescient, really. Almost like I might have been thinking of you. Oh well, I'm not going to convince you and given the fact that you in no way support, endorse or use Informix, I don't know why I bothered to try in the first place. I'm going to go to bed, and in the morning, go out for a drive with the roof down in the cool, crisp autumn air and forget that computers exist for a while. -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com