Re: IDS Next Version - features wanted - again widely on topic

Dirk Moolman wrote: > One thing I love about Informix, is how simple yet powerful it is. We > started moving to Oracle, and I don't want to go into detail - but I > appreciate Informix more now. > > It is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable - like Unix. > > Maybe I am old school, I don't know. > And you didn't tell me one thing about Informix that is different or compelling enough to use it instead of something else. Oracle is not too difficult to install, but I do agree it is more difficult to use and manage than Informix. But think about life outside Informix for a moment: DB2 is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable - like UNIX. MySQL is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. Sybase is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. Postgres is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. Ms-SQL-Server is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. So, after a day of waiting for someone to say something compelling about Informix vs something else, NONE OF YOU have done so. Informix is interesting, and has a lot of great features, but I've yet to hear why it should be chosen over any other product in the mainstream market. Here's one for you: DB2 is more tunable than Informix, and allows you to tune memory management better than Informix, so why would I use Informix instead of DB2? DB2 has lots of tools to migrate from SQL-Server, and make Microsoft Developers happy, does Informix have this? Gimme something.

"Data Goob" <datagoob@netscape.net> wrote in message news:Tnore.2$BL.0@fe61.usenetserver.com... > Dirk Moolman wrote: > And you didn't tell me one thing about Informix that is different > or compelling enough to use it instead of something else. Oracle > is not too difficult to install, but I do agree it is more difficult > to use and manage than Informix. But think about life outside Informix > for a moment: > > DB2 is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable - like UNIX. > MySQL is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. > Sybase is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. > Postgres is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. > Ms-SQL-Server is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like > UNIX. > > So, after a day of waiting for someone to say something compelling about > Informix vs something else, NONE OF YOU have done so. Informix is > interesting, > and has a lot of great features, but I've yet to hear why it should be > chosen over any other product in the mainstream market. A fair challenge. I don't want to get into a flame war, or even be required to justify my opinions or prejudices, but as a past and present administrator of IDS, DB2, Oracle and SQL Server, I like IDS because: - I think it offers the best performance in most cases, particularly where parallel data querying can be deployed (Of course I can't prove this because IBM will not put Informix up for TPC benchmarking, ostensibly because it is too expensive) - Along with SQL Server it is the least effort to administer and the most liable to just go on and on if left without TLC for a while - The tech support is still very good (although to be fair I've not used Oracle's or MS's, and DB2's is pretty good too). Perhaps most of all ... - It is ultra, ultra reliable in High-Availability situations. If my life depended upon it I'd still prefer to rely on Informix-on-UNIX over any other database-OS combination.

"Captain Pedantic" <theharlequin36@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3h6jm3Ffo3viU1@individual.net... > "Data Goob" <datagoob@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:Tnore.2$BL.0@fe61.usenetserver.com... >> Dirk Moolman wrote: > >> And you didn't tell me one thing about Informix that is different >> or compelling enough to use it instead of something else. Oracle >> is not too difficult to install, but I do agree it is more difficult >> to use and manage than Informix. But think about life outside Informix >> for a moment: >> >> DB2 is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable - like UNIX. >> MySQL is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. >> Sybase is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. >> Postgres is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like UNIX. >> Ms-SQL-Server is easy to install, easy to setup, and very stable. - like >> UNIX. >> >> So, after a day of waiting for someone to say something compelling about >> Informix vs something else, NONE OF YOU have done so. Informix is >> interesting, >> and has a lot of great features, but I've yet to hear why it should be >> chosen over any other product in the mainstream market. > > > A fair challenge. I don't want to get into a flame war, or even be > required > to justify my opinions or prejudices, but as a past and present > administrator of IDS, DB2, Oracle and SQL Server, I like IDS because: > > - I think it offers the best performance in most cases, particularly where > parallel data querying can be deployed (Of course I can't prove this > because > IBM will not put Informix up for TPC benchmarking, ostensibly because it > is > too expensive) > - Along with SQL Server it is the least effort to administer and the most > liable to just go on and on if left without TLC for a while > - The tech support is still very good (although to be fair I've not used > Oracle's or MS's, and DB2's is pretty good too). > > Perhaps most of all ... > - It is ultra, ultra reliable in High-Availability situations. If my life > depended upon it I'd still prefer to rely on Informix-on-UNIX over any > other > database-OS combination. Shit! I forgot to mention that I also love it because it is IBM's embedded database of choice ...

"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:3h6jpqFficfaU1@individual.net... > > ****! I forgot to mention that I also love it because it is IBM's > embedded > database of choice ... Pardon my language, sorry. Does anyone know the reasons behind IBM so declaring Informix by the way? I have to say that it feels a bit like the consolation prize, but perhaps I'm being unfair and maybe it is an attempt to get the ISV market back behind Informix again. The types of ISV I'd *really* like to see IBM convince are the SAPs and Lawsons though ... I'm sure it's not for the want of trying.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:48:24 +0100, "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: >"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message >news:3h6jpqFficfaU1@individual.net... >> >> ****! I forgot to mention that I also love it because it is IBM's >> embedded >> database of choice ... > >Pardon my language, sorry. >Does anyone know the reasons behind IBM so declaring Informix by the way? I >have to say that it feels a bit like the consolation prize, but perhaps I'm >being unfair and maybe it is an attempt to get the ISV market back behind >Informix again. The types of ISV I'd *really* like to see IBM convince are >the SAPs and Lawsons though ... I'm sure it's not for the want of trying. > other than the fact they they (apparently) haven't done it yet . . . JWC

"John Carlson" <jwcarlson1@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message news:tdfsa15j31th8dp9krg18u05scu1veggqn@4ax.com... > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:48:24 +0100, "Neil Truby" > <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > >>"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message >>news:3h6jpqFficfaU1@individual.net... >>> >>> ****! I forgot to mention that I also love it because it is IBM's >>> embedded >>> database of choice ... >> >>Pardon my language, sorry. >>Does anyone know the reasons behind IBM so declaring Informix by the way? >>I >>have to say that it feels a bit like the consolation prize, but perhaps >>I'm >>being unfair and maybe it is an attempt to get the ISV market back behind >>Informix again. The types of ISV I'd *really* like to see IBM convince >>are >>the SAPs and Lawsons though ... I'm sure it's not for the want of trying. >> > > other than the fact they they (apparently) haven't done it yet . . . At the recent UK Infobahn I spoke to the Worldwide Sales Manager for Informix sales - a charming and plain-speaking Italian gentlemen, ex-Informix employee and passionate about it, based in the US - who assured me that IBM has and continues to try to persuade these major ISVs to repent. And I believe him. Trouble is, we are reaping what was sown in the early days of the takeover. And to see thing from these companies' point of view, why would they want to spend extra cash supporting two databases from one vendor, particularly when that vendor itself seems (or seemed) at best lukewarm about one of them?

John Carlson wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:48:24 +0100, "Neil Truby" > <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: > > >>"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message >>news:3h6jpqFficfaU1@individual.net... >> >>>****! I forgot to mention that I also love it because it is IBM's >>>embedded >>>database of choice ... >> >>Pardon my language, sorry. >>Does anyone know the reasons behind IBM so declaring Informix by the way? I >>have to say that it feels a bit like the consolation prize, but perhaps I'm >>being unfair and maybe it is an attempt to get the ISV market back behind >>Informix again. The types of ISV I'd *really* like to see IBM convince are >>the SAPs and Lawsons though ... I'm sure it's not for the want of trying. >> > > > other than the fact they they (apparently) haven't done it yet . . . > > JWC Neil, You said it yourself earlier. IDS can operate silently in the background of an app without the need for handholding. Some folks have asked for more knobs in IDS (like multiple page sizes, bufferpools, ...). These knobs unfortunately come at a price. To the best of my knowledge IDS has a strong past in the SMB market with the mid-tier, regional ISVs. IBM is doing nothing more than finally acknowledging that IDS has what DB2 lacks and will not get on short notice. FWIW I do not feel that IDS gets the consolation price. The SMB market is very important and one of the biggest growing segments to IBM. I would not hold my breath on SAP and Lawson however because both companies apparently have decided to integrate much deeper with IBM SWG. For these apps it makes no sense to do this with more than one product from the portfolio, especially since many customers will go with whatever is provided as the default option (which is why Oracle has such a strong incumbent position) It is needless to say that SAP has a strong DB2 for zOS footprint and they absolutely need to drive synergies from the commonalities across the platforms which makes the choice of DB2 over IDS easy no matter what the perception of the underlying technology is. Just check the DB2 references in the Oracle SQL Ref to see which power DB2 for zOS still wields. By contrast the SMB ISV market couldn't care less about DB2 for zOS so the playing fields is more even with IDS being able to play its strengths. Just my 2 cents canadian. Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > John Carlson wrote: > >> On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:48:24 +0100, "Neil Truby" >> <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote: >> >> >>> "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message >>> news:3h6jpqFficfaU1@individual.net... >>> >>>> ****! I forgot to mention that I also love it because it is IBM's >>>> embedded >>>> database of choice ... >>> >>> >>> Pardon my language, sorry. >>> Does anyone know the reasons behind IBM so declaring Informix by the >>> way? I have to say that it feels a bit like the consolation prize, >>> but perhaps I'm being unfair and maybe it is an attempt to get the >>> ISV market back behind Informix again. The types of ISV I'd *really* >>> like to see IBM convince are the SAPs and Lawsons though ... I'm >>> sure it's not for the want of trying. >> >> >> >> other than the fact they they (apparently) haven't done it yet . . . >> >> JWC > > Neil, > > You said it yourself earlier. IDS can operate silently in the background > of an app without the need for handholding. > Some folks have asked for more knobs in IDS (like multiple page sizes, > bufferpools, ...). These knobs unfortunately come at a price. > To the best of my knowledge IDS has a strong past in the SMB market with > the mid-tier, regional ISVs. IBM is doing nothing more than finally > acknowledging that IDS has what DB2 lacks and will not get on short notice. > Which is what? What does IDS have that DB2 does not have? DB2 can operate silently in the background too. I get the impression that most IBM people do not know IDS well enough to even talk about it. Folks forgive me for being redundant, but this is the core problem with this discussion, and perception. IDS is important, but to whom? People may have pet products, but does this make sense from a business perspective? I have yet to see why anyone should pick a database product just because a bunch of diehards "love it man". That is not how IDS will ever pull out of the coma it is in. DB2 by the way has the same functionality, if not better, than XPS does, the question is, why isn't XPS being pushed too? Because it doesn't matter! Why aren't there any open source initiatives to compete with MySQL, or PostGres? Because IDS doesn't matter. When IDS/XPS/SE can be shown to be relevant in a comparison chart vs a competitor they can be sold if they have that one compelling nugget that says IDS IS THE ONE. MySQL has shared-nothing capability now, soon the world will have litle reason to even use DB2 or Oracle. By the way, it's been so long since I used Informix SE, doesn't it come with stored procedures? If so, doesn't it make a better choice than MySQL, which is only now getting SP's? IBM just doesn't know anything about IDS, nor do they really care to. Get your DB2 training, and enjoy it, it's a great product, and has a chance of saving your career or your business opportunities. > FWIW I do not feel that IDS gets the consolation price. The SMB market > is very important and one of the biggest growing segments to IBM. Argumenst for MySQL, SQL-Server, PostGres, in the true SMB pricing arena, sub $1000 USD/CPU. > I would not hold my breath on SAP and Lawson however because both > companies apparently have decided to integrate much deeper with IBM SWG. > For these apps it makes no sense to do this with more than one product > from the portfolio, especially since many customers will go with > whatever is provided as the default option (which is why Oracle has such > a strong incumbent position) > It is needless to say that SAP has a strong DB2 for zOS footprint and > they absolutely need to drive synergies from the commonalities across > the platforms which makes the choice of DB2 over IDS easy no matter what > the perception of the underlying technology is. > Just check the DB2 references in the Oracle SQL Ref to see which power > DB2 for zOS still wields. > By contrast the SMB ISV market couldn't care less about DB2 for zOS so > the playing fields is more even with IDS being able to play its strengths. > > Just my 2 cents canadian. > Serge There you have it. Say bye-bye to IDS! Woo-hoo! :-) With that kind of insder perception IDS is truly dead.

Data Goob wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: <snip> > > There you have it. Say bye-bye to IDS! Woo-hoo! > > :-) > > With that kind of insder perception IDS is truly dead. > That's not what I wrote at all. But you do seem to read into things what you want to. IDS, btw as a lot more than simply stored procs and you know it. IDS runs on non Windows platforms (unlike SQL Server) ISVs are getting more and more wary of MS just they get of Oracle. Further, selling to the SMB market is not about the low entry price only. One thing that no open source DBMS has and will have for a long time to come is lend a hand to an ISV to help them market their stuff. IBM can cross-sell and market ISV apps. mySQL et al. cannot. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab