Re: Company thought DB2 will be better than Oracle.

"Larry Edelstein" <lsedels@us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:3F65B2D3.FC4C3F4F@us.ibm.com... > As has been the pattern with your appends, they are complete > misrepresentations and demonstrate that you are terribly misinformed. You need > an IBM software briefing. Technology from Informix products is being > integrated and shared within the IBM Data Management family. Give it time. As per Lord Birkenhead when he was addressing the Court of Appeal. The presiding judge said, with that acerbic edge to his voice which judges reserve for the task of cutting counsel down to size, "Your argument leaves me none the wiser". Lord Birkenhead looked up at the wizened and septuagenarian judge and replied "Maybe not wiser, my Lord, but hopefully better informed." And in this case, you may not think I'm wise, but I am very well-informed. I sit on the Board of Directors of the International Informix Users Group and have thereby sat through endless IBM briefings on the future of Informix under IBM. You, presumably, would not attend an IBM briefing that declared that the moon was made of (big) blue cheese and quite happily accept this unquestioningly? When I attend IBM briefings - or anyone else's really - I tend to treat everything I'm told with a (hopefully) healthy dose of scepticism, and test everything I'm told against other evidence available. In this case, I agree that the IBM message is "everything's tickety-boo with Informix under IBM". The evidence of the real world, however, is that an increasing number of customers are abandonning Informix under pressure from their ISVs. Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if anyone knows of one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really matter what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is what counts.

Neil, I can respect your attitude on briefings. That's fair enough. But I believe that the people in Toronto who do IBM DB2 briefings have nothing but the highest integrity...and I firmly believe that if it is possible to execute their plans (remember ... business drivers change in the I/T world), they will. I have sat through them and listened to plans on a procedural SQL language (years back) and a GUI-based stored-procedure builder ... and it happened. This is just one example. And it happened because IBM customers came to them and told them that it had to be added into the product. There have been numerous other features added into DB2 that have been spoken about beforehand in briefings. I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix customers. Perhaps you are in the UK, where there might be more of that. But I have at least two customers in the NYC area who are moving to DB2 instead of Oracle from Informix (two out of two Informix customers that I have, actually). Larry Edelstein Neil Truby wrote: > "Larry Edelstein" <lsedels@us.ibm.com> wrote in message > news:3F65B2D3.FC4C3F4F@us.ibm.com... > > As has been the pattern with your appends, they are complete > > misrepresentations and demonstrate that you are terribly misinformed. You > need > > an IBM software briefing. Technology from Informix products is being > > integrated and shared within the IBM Data Management family. Give it time. > > As per Lord Birkenhead when he was addressing the Court of Appeal. The > presiding judge said, with that acerbic edge to his voice which judges > reserve for the task of cutting counsel down to size, "Your argument leaves > me none the wiser". Lord Birkenhead looked up at the wizened and > septuagenarian judge and replied "Maybe not wiser, my Lord, but hopefully > better informed." > > And in this case, you may not think I'm wise, but I am very well-informed. > I sit on the Board of Directors of the International Informix Users Group > and have thereby sat through endless IBM briefings on the future of Informix > under IBM. > > You, presumably, would not attend an IBM briefing that declared that the > moon was made of (big) blue cheese and quite happily accept this > unquestioningly? When I attend IBM briefings - or anyone else's really - I > tend to treat everything I'm told with a (hopefully) healthy dose of > scepticism, and test everything I'm told against other evidence available. > > In this case, I agree that the IBM message is "everything's tickety-boo with > Informix under IBM". The evidence of the real world, however, is that an > increasing number of customers are abandonning Informix under pressure from > their ISVs. Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if > anyone knows of one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to > DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really > matter what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is > what counts.

Larry Edelstein wrote: > I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the > Informix customers. And I disagree with you. Yours is the first case I've heard of where an Informix user has migrated to DB2. I see dozens of users in the course of my day job, and I either see people staying with Informix or leaving for Oracle. I wouldn't base my perception on knowing two customers. I *would* base it on knowing 20 or 30. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Larry Edelstein wrote: ><snipped> > >I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix >customers. > ><snipped> > > I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. Every student that applies to my class (and these are not 20 year olds ... all have a minimum CS degree and almost all at least 10 years industry experience) must submit a letter explaining why they have registered for the class and a resume with their background: Do you think almost 1/3 of them, this year, are lying? You are welcome to disagree on subjective matters such as who was better, Mozart of Bach. But on what basis do you feel you can disagree on a matter where there is an answer that is objectively correct? -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1064070114.74321@yasure... > Larry Edelstein wrote: > > ><snipped> > > > >I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix > >customers. > I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. > But on what basis do you > feel you can disagree on a matter where there is an answer that is > objectively correct? In his defence - and speaking as someone whose experience suggests that Larry is 100% wrong - although there *is* an answer that's objectively correct, it's next-to-impossible to find out. In fact, this is one reason that makes me believe I'm right. Don't you think you'd be getting endless tireless and self-congratulatory emails/weblinks from IBM if they *were* having success in converting ex-Informix customers?

There you go again, Daniel ... twisting things around to make it sound like you're right. Here is Neil's statement: "... Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if anyone knows of one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really matter what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is what counts." My statement back to Neil was: "I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix customers. Perhaps you are in the UK, where there might be more of that. But I have at least two customers in the NYC area who are moving to DB2 instead of Oracle from Informix (two out of two Informix customers that I have, actually)." Another Daniel misrepresentation. Case closed. Larry Edelstein Daniel Morgan wrote: > Larry Edelstein wrote: > > ><snipped> > > > >I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix > >customers. > > > ><snipped> > > > > > I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. > > Every student that applies to my class (and these are not 20 year olds > ... all have a minimum CS degree and almost all at > least 10 years industry experience) must submit a letter explaining why > they have registered for the class and a resume > with their background: Do you think almost 1/3 of them, this year, are > lying? > > You are welcome to disagree on subjective matters such as who was > better, Mozart of Bach. But on what basis do you > feel you can disagree on a matter where there is an answer that is > objectively correct? > > -- > Daniel Morgan > http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp > http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp > damorgan@x.washington.edu > (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Neil Truby wrote: >"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message >news:1064070114.74321@yasure... > > >>Larry Edelstein wrote: >> >> >> >>><snipped> >>> >>>I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the >>> >>> >Informix > > >>>customers. >>> >>> > > > >>I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. >> But on what basis do you >>feel you can disagree on a matter where there is an answer that is >>objectively correct? >> >> > >In his defence - and speaking as someone whose experience suggests that >Larry is 100% wrong - although there *is* an answer that's objectively >correct, it's next-to-impossible to find out. > >In fact, this is one reason that makes me believe I'm right. Don't you >think you'd be getting endless tireless and self-congratulatory >emails/weblinks from IBM if they *were* having success in converting >ex-Informix customers? > > > Actually if IBM did what is said it was going to do ... continue to support Informix customers with the software they have come to, if not love, appreciate, they'd not be converting anyone to anything. Their customers would be happily staying right where they are with a product that met their needs. I see IBM in a bit of a moral dilemma ... try to convert them to DB2 and you've admitting you are trashing their product. Don't try to convert them and likely lose the vast majority. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Larry Edelstein wrote: >There you go again, Daniel ... twisting things around to make it sound like >you're right. > >Here is Neil's statement: > >"... Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if anyone knows of >one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to >DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really matter >what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is >what counts." > >My statement back to Neil was: > >"I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix >customers. Perhaps you are in the UK, where there might be more of that. But I >have at least two customers in the NYC area who are moving to DB2 instead of >Oracle from Informix (two out of two Informix customers that I have, actually)." > >Another Daniel misrepresentation. Case closed. > >Larry Edelstein > >Daniel Morgan wrote: > > > >>Larry Edelstein wrote: >> >> >> >>><snipped> >>> >>>I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix >>>customers. >>> >>><snipped> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. >> >>Every student that applies to my class (and these are not 20 year olds >>... all have a minimum CS degree and almost all at >>least 10 years industry experience) must submit a letter explaining why >>they have registered for the class and a resume >>with their background: Do you think almost 1/3 of them, this year, are >>lying? >> >>You are welcome to disagree on subjective matters such as who was >>better, Mozart of Bach. But on what basis do you >>feel you can disagree on a matter where there is an answer that is >>objectively correct? >> >>-- >>Daniel Morgan >>http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp >>http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp >>damorgan@x.washington.edu >>(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) >> >> I didn't twist anything. I put a challenge to you a simple sentence consisting of only 11 words.. What you have done is evaded answering that simple inquiry. So I'll try the exact same statement again. I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. Care to answer or should I just assume that your disagreement is baseless? -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

<snip> Daniel Morgan wrote: > Larry Edelstein wrote: > > >There you go again, Daniel ... twisting things around to make it sound like > >you're right. > > > >Here is Neil's statement: > > > >"... Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if anyone knows of > >one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to > >DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really matter > >what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is > >what counts." > > > >My statement back to Neil was: > > > >"I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix > >customers. Perhaps you are in the UK, where there might be more of that. But I > >have at least two customers in the NYC area who are moving to DB2 instead of > >Oracle from Informix (two out of two Informix customers that I have, actually)." > > > >Another Daniel misrepresentation. Case closed. > > > >Larry Edelstein > > > > >>> > >>><snipped> > >>> > > >> > >> > I didn't twist anything. I put a challenge to you a simple sentence > consisting of only 11 words.. What you have done is evaded answering > that simple inquiry. So I'll try the exact same statement again. > > I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. > > Care to answer or should I just assume that your disagreement is baseless? > > -- > Daniel Morgan > http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp > http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp > damorgan@x.washington.edu > (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) Daniel ... I don't know how much plainer I can make it. I will repeat it again: "I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix customers. Perhaps you are in the UK, where there might be more of that. But I have at least two customers in the NYC area who are moving to DB2 instead of Oracle from Informix (two out of two Informix customers that I have, actually)." Your answer to that statement was: "Every student that applies to my class (and these are not 20 year olds ... all have a minimum CS degree and almost all at least 10 years industry experience) must submit a letter explaining why they have registered for the class and a resume with their background: Do you think almost 1/3 of them, this year, are lying?You are welcome to disagree on subjective matters such as who was better, Mozart of Bach. But on what basis do you feel you can disagree on a matter where there is an answer that is objectively correct?" I'm confused, Daniel. I provide the same kind of "evidence" that you do, and you come back and say that you don't see how I can disagree on a matter where the answer is that objectively correct? That's trying to twist things around. Please ... don't insult the people on this newsgroup. Give it up. Larry Edelstein

Larry Edelstein wrote: ><snip> > >Daniel Morgan wrote: > > > >>Larry Edelstein wrote: >> >> >> >>>There you go again, Daniel ... twisting things around to make it sound like >>>you're right. >>> >>>Here is Neil's statement: >>> >>>"... Furthermore, in my experience (please name one, someone, if anyone knows of >>>one) I know not of a single such defector who is moving to >>>DB2. Oracle and SQL Server are the beneficiaries. So it doesn't really matter >>>what IBM *says*, the market perceives differently. And *that* is >>>what counts." >>> >>>My statement back to Neil was: >>> >>>"I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix >>>customers. Perhaps you are in the UK, where there might be more of that. But I >>>have at least two customers in the NYC area who are moving to DB2 instead of >>>Oracle from Informix (two out of two Informix customers that I have, actually)." >>> >>>Another Daniel misrepresentation. Case closed. >>> >>>Larry Edelstein >>> >>> >>> >>>>><snipped> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>I didn't twist anything. I put a challenge to you a simple sentence >>consisting of only 11 words.. What you have done is evaded answering >>that simple inquiry. So I'll try the exact same statement again. >> >>I would be fascinated to know on what basis you disagree. >> >>Care to answer or should I just assume that your disagreement is baseless? >> >>-- >>Daniel Morgan >>http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp >>http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp >>damorgan@x.washington.edu >>(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) >> >> > >Daniel ... I don't know how much plainer I can make it. I will repeat it again: > >"I disagree with your statement on Oracle and SQLServer gaining the Informix >customers. Perhaps you are in the UK, where there might be more of that. But I >have at least two customers in the NYC area who are moving to DB2 instead of Oracle >from Informix (two out of two Informix customers that I have, actually)." > >Your answer to that statement was: > >"Every student that applies to my class (and these are not 20 year olds ... all have >a minimum CS degree and almost all at least 10 years industry experience) must submit >a letter explaining why they have registered for the class and a resume with their >background: Do you think almost 1/3 of them, this year, are >lying?You are welcome to disagree on subjective matters such as who was better, >Mozart of Bach. But on what basis do you feel you can disagree on a matter where >there is an answer that is objectively correct?" > >I'm confused, Daniel. I provide the same kind of "evidence" that you do, and you >come back and say that you don't see how I can disagree on a matter where the answer >is that objectively correct? That's trying to twist things around. Please ... don't >insult the people on this newsgroup. Give it up. > >Larry Edelstein > > > I'd have thought the links under my name would clue you into the fact that I teach at the University of Washington (notice how it says "washington" that means the state and "edu" that means education). Which I know many in New York don't consider part of the United States ... but we are. ;-) I think there are a couple small companies located out here you might have heard of before ... Microsoft? Boeing? AT&T Wireless? Were you at the IIUG meeting? Do you remember where it was? ;-) My experience and comments are based on my experience. Where I teach and my students ... about 1/4 of which are from countries mostly in Asia. From my own consulting practice and my clients which are currently located in Washington, New Jersey, Virginia, Korea, and Sweden. And from following the discussions in these usenet groups and other forums. If New York is different so be it. But I won't claim Seattle is New York if you won't claim New York is the entire universe. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote: > I see IBM in a bit of a moral dilemma ... try to convert them to DB2 and > you've admitting you are trashing their product. Don't > try to convert them and likely lose the vast majority. In the UK, we're big fans of The Third Way. The way to solve this, is to suck up to President Bush in a poodle-y kind of way and ... er... I mean, like, well, ... how about we start to actively promote Informix again? -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >Daniel Morgan wrote: > > > >>I see IBM in a bit of a moral dilemma ... try to convert them to DB2 and >>you've admitting you are trashing their product. Don't >>try to convert them and likely lose the vast majority. >> >> > >In the UK, we're big fans of The Third Way. The way to solve this, is to >suck up to President Bush in a poodle-y kind of way and ... er... I mean, >like, well, ... how about we start to actively promote Informix again? > > Though I'd like to be wrong I suspect about as likely as a successful 'Fox' hunt in Redmond Washington. ;-) -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >>Daniel Morgan wrote: >> >>>I see IBM in a bit of a moral dilemma ... try to convert them to DB2 and >>>you've admitting you are trashing their product. Don't >>>try to convert them and likely lose the vast majority. >> >>In the UK, we're big fans of The Third Way. The way to solve this, is to >>suck up to President Bush in a poodle-y kind of way and ... er... I mean, >>like, well, ... how about we start to actively promote Informix again? >> > Though I'd like to be wrong I suspect about as likely as a successful > 'Fox' hunt in Redmond Washington. ;-) Hah! The bugger's trying to stop that as well. Because he knows so much better than the 100's of years of tradition he's pissing over. Still, I think we're off-topic now, even for me. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > And I disagree with you. Yours is the first case I've heard of where > an Informix user has migrated to DB2. I see dozens of users in the > course of my day job which begs the question - what is your night job and what sort of customers do you see there?