Are you still awake, Kate?
> Have u seen anything re: db2 also Well, no. But nor am I contributing to a thread in which the central tenet is the apparently incredible claim that DB2 is increasing the volume of its sales despite zero marketing outside the existing customer base.
On Feb 5, 1:16 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Have u seen anything re: db2 also > > Well, no. > > But nor am I contributing to a thread in which the central tenet is the > apparently incredible claim that DB2 is increasing the volume of its sales > despite zero marketing outside the existing customer base. Well that wasn't what this thread was about in the first place. The thread was actually directed toward Kate T. on the IIUG BoD who did the survey on the value of an IDS benchmark. Outside of shutting me up, she did raise some valid issues that are good reasons why IBM should do the benchmark. Unfortunately, Keesee's comment on his last call clearly indicated that IBM would continue to do OLTP benchmarks using DB2 since they've already got it set up and that they didn't want to do an IDS benchmark because of the 'cost' and the fact that its an ongoing cost as they would have to defend the benchmark. Unfortunately Jerry said 'expensive' which is a relative term. We don't know how expensive. So the question to Kate is if the IIUG understands the issues why IBM will not do a benchmark, and if they feel that IBM is putting skin in to the game in some other manner that would still show IBM's commitment to IDS. Of course only a wanker would try and sidetrack this issue, no?
Captain Pedantic wrote: >> Have u seen anything re: db2 also > > Well, no. > > But nor am I contributing to a thread in which the central tenet is the > apparently incredible claim that DB2 is increasing the volume of its sales > despite zero marketing outside the existing customer base. You're not much of a pedant, are you? -- Cheers, Obnoxio The Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.