Re: Onweb
A rant thread rather than a support question: users (Tim Schaefer, Paul Watson, Mike Segel) complained that Informix's OnWeb 1.00 bundled and installed its own copies of Apache and Perl, clashing with versions already on their systems. Jonathan Leffler of Informix confirmed the complaint had been passed on: notes on using a pre-installed Apache/Perl were posted on the IDN site (the main issue being pointing Perl at the Informix scripts), and the bundled copies were to become optional in the 1.10/1.20 releases. Side gripes about RPM-based and Client SDK installs, and whether Perl was suitable at all, went unresolved.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
>>> Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@bellsouth.net> 10/22/99 01:59PM >>> >Hey Informix! > >You actually were dumb enough to let this software out of >the lab!!!!! Such stupidity! Sorry I thought you'd used their products before >What on earth possessed you to include your own version of >Perl and Apache???? Because they could not work out how to do it properly >Didn't you stop to think that maybe these two items were already installed on a >platform???? Of course they didn't. Nobody had heard of Apache and Perl until Informix included them in OnWeb >HELLO! Hello >The developers and the managers that released this product are >incompetents. You need to ask about the management!!!! Sorry Tim you shouldn't need ask that, most of their management are staff that failed the Marketing Department entrance tests. >Are you going to release your own C-compiler too? You haven't receieved your OnC, they ship two OnCU (Unix) and OnCNT (NT). You would have thought they'd merge the product into one wouldn't you??? >I can't believe the QA department let this one slip out the >door too! Thats not fair everybody knows they don't have a QA department >When you release it again without including your own >Perl and Apache distributions, then I'll use it, until then >this product is total S H I T. I am totally amazed that this >product, which was really anticipated could actually be released >with such retarded thinking behind the release. Morons! >This is exactly why I will never use and install OnWeb: A cynic would say it's beacuse you've got your own version:-))))), there again most of us have. Be far it OnWeb is hardly rocket science. Paul Watson WF Software Ltd Tel: +44 1436 674729 Fax: +44 1436 678729 www.wfsoftware.com/informix # If you broke it, hide the evidence ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************
Hey, I'm just waiting for this newsgroup to go digital, then I'll drag out my Sam Kineson videos and let him be my spokesman. :-) Actually I was disappointed in OnWeb right off the bat, but Paul Watson got me thinking of new product for Informix: OnFire - a daemon for the marketing department server to automagically fire the people in the marketing department who don't produce anything and make huge salaries and take vacations in Europe while the company sits on the sidelines in the marketplace and misses opportunity after opportunity to leverage the market. OnMeat - a daemon for the human resources department to start searches automatically for the Diane Fraiman replacement. This would allow the searches to start NOW instead of waiting. OnOff - A lightswitch animated GIF for the corporate web page. OK, it's a joke. Seriously I just wish they'd fire the whole damn marketing department, and get on with some advertising like other companies do. Why does Informix have to be so f***ed up when it comes to marketing... OnWeb goes down in the corporate annuals as another winner like NewError, & Universal Data Soldier. OnWeb can now be OnTangled. I-Spy should be renamed to OnPeek. :-) Tim Mike Segel wrote: > > Gee I disappear for a while and what did I miss? > > Timmy, put down that gun. Going postal over this is not worth it. > Now come over here and take these little white pills to calm you down. (No alcohol allowed. ;-) > > Seriously. > Did you ever expect Informix to do anything right? > Sigh, with people who think their simple jobs equate to rocket science, its no wonder that things > get FUBAR'd on a regular basis. > (Oh but thats another story.) > > To be short and susinct, here's a free clue. > They could have done this without releasing Apache, or Perl. > In fact they shouldn't even be using Perl to do this in the first place. > > But hey, what do I know? I'm just a drunk psychotic guy who's suffering the sins of the married > life. ;-) > > -Mikey > -- . .- .-- .--- .---- Tim Schaefer .----- tschaefe@bellsouth.net .---- http://www.inxutil.com .--- http://www.datad.com .-- .- .
Gee I disappear for a while and what did I miss? Timmy, put down that gun. Going postal over this is not worth it. Now come over here and take these little white pills to calm you down. (No alcohol allowed. ;-) Seriously. Did you ever expect Informix to do anything right? Sigh, with people who think their simple jobs equate to rocket science, its no wonder that things get FUBAR'd on a regular basis. (Oh but thats another story.) To be short and susinct, here's a free clue. They could have done this without releasing Apache, or Perl. In fact they shouldn't even be using Perl to do this in the first place. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a drunk psychotic guy who's suffering the sins of the married life. ;-) -Mikey Paul watson wrote: > >>> Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@bellsouth.net> 10/22/99 01:59PM >>> > >Hey Informix! > > > >You actually were dumb enough to let this software out of > >the lab!!!!! Such stupidity! > > Sorry I thought you'd used their products before > > >What on earth possessed you to include your own version of > >Perl and Apache???? > > Because they could not work out how to do it properly > > >Didn't you stop to think that maybe these two items were already installed on a >platform???? > > Of course they didn't. Nobody had heard of Apache and Perl until Informix included > them in OnWeb > > >HELLO! > > Hello > > >The developers and the managers that released this product are > >incompetents. > > You need to ask about the management!!!! Sorry Tim you shouldn't need ask that, most > of their management are staff that failed the Marketing Department entrance tests. > > >Are you going to release your own C-compiler too? > > You haven't receieved your OnC, they ship two OnCU (Unix) and OnCNT (NT). You > would have thought they'd merge the product into one wouldn't you??? > > >I can't believe the QA department let this one slip out the > >door too! > > Thats not fair everybody knows they don't have a QA department > > >When you release it again without including your own > >Perl and Apache distributions, then I'll use it, until then > >this product is total S H I T. I am totally amazed that this > >product, which was really anticipated could actually be released > >with such retarded thinking behind the release. Morons! > > >This is exactly why I will never use and install OnWeb: > > A cynic would say it's beacuse you've got your own version:-))))), there again most > of us have. Be far it OnWeb is hardly rocket science. > > Paul Watson > WF Software Ltd > Tel: +44 1436 674729 > Fax: +44 1436 678729 > www.wfsoftware.com/informix > # If you broke it, hide the evidence > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > www.mimesweeper.com > **********************************************************************
Paul watson wrote: > >>> Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@bellsouth.net> 10/22/99 01:59PM >>> > >Hey Informix! > > > >You actually were dumb enough to let this software out of > >the lab!!!!! Such stupidity! > > Sorry I thought you'd used their products before > > >What on earth possessed you to include your own version of > >Perl and Apache???? > > Because they could not work out how to do it properly > > >Didn't you stop to think that maybe these two items were already installed on a >platform???? > > Of course they didn't. Nobody had heard of Apache and Perl until Informix included > them in OnWeb I go on holiday for two weeks and a full scale war breaks out over trivia :-( OK. I installed ONWEB 1.00 at the beginning of September and immediately noted that I didn't really need another copy of either Apache or Perl on my already well loaded system (3 versions of Perl, 4 versions of Apache with different amounts of different add ons). So I asked the developers about it, and they have realized that it is not always a good idea, but sometimes it is a good idea, to have the Apache and Perl with the OnWeb product... There are at least two distinct communities who will be using OnWeb - roughly, those who know what Apache and Perl are, and those who don't. Those who don't know about them -- and they *do* exist -- benefit from having a works out of the box system. Those who do know about them find another copy of Apache and Perl is a nuisance. What will happen in the future (1.10 and 1.20 releases, where 1.10 is due to be released before the end of the year) is that the Informix-supplied Apache and Perl will be optional. There is now somewhere on the IDN web site information about what you need to do to use a pre-installed Apache or Perl (or both) with OnWeb. This is a new addition, made after this ruckus was brought to our attention (thanks Andy for raising the issue; thanks Ted and Ron and John for getting the info onto IDN). I've not personally checked what it says - the news arrived when I was 10 minutes late leaving for home. The primary problem, incidentally, is making sure that the Perl knows where to look for the Informix scripts. The Perl and Apache are actually very standard (if slightly dated) versions of the products. -- Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@informix.com, jleffler@earthlink.net) Guardian of DBD::Informix v0.62 -- see http://www.perl.com/CPAN #include <disclaimer.h>
> I go on holiday for two weeks and a full scale war breaks out over > trivia :-( > We always misbehave when teacher is away :-)) I thought Obnoxious the Clown was very quiet though:-)) Paul Watson # I don't suffer from WF Software Ltd. # stress, I'm just Tel. (+44) 1436 674729 # a carrier Fax. (+44) 1436 678693 # www.wfsoftware.com
In article <381A80B8.ECFDAC24@earthlink.net>, Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@earthlink.net> writes >I go on holiday for two weeks and a full scale war breaks out over trivia :-( > >OK. I installed ONWEB 1.00 at the beginning of September and immediately noted >that I didn't >really need another copy of either Apache or Perl on my already well loaded >system (3 versions of >Perl, 4 versions of Apache with different amounts of different add ons). So I >asked the >developers about it, and they have realized that it is not always a good idea, >but sometimes it is >a good idea, to have the Apache and Perl with the OnWeb product... > Our system at work does not have Perl or Apache on it so it would be a good idea. But it should be optional. Customer sites may already have it. One customer I know has perl but not Apache so each one needs to be optional. Also why does it need to be Apache? Wouldn't any Web Server be ok? >There are at least two distinct communities who will be using OnWeb - roughly, >those who know what >Apache and Perl are, and those who don't. Those who don't know about them -- >and they *do* exist >-- benefit from having a works out of the box system. Those who do know about >them find another >copy of Apache and Perl is a nuisance. > >What will happen in the future (1.10 and 1.20 releases, where 1.10 is due to be >released before >the end of the year) is that the Informix-supplied Apache and Perl will be >optional. > >There is now somewhere on the IDN web site information about what you need to do >to use a >pre-installed Apache or Perl (or both) with OnWeb. This is a new addition, made >after this ruckus >was brought to our attention (thanks Andy for raising the issue; thanks Ted and >Ron and John for >getting the info onto IDN). I've not personally checked what it says - the news >arrived when I >was 10 minutes late leaving for home. > >The primary problem, incidentally, is making sure that the Perl knows where to >look for the >Informix scripts. The Perl and Apache are actually very standard (if slightly >dated) versions of >the products. > >-- >Jonathan Leffler (jleffler@informix.com, jleffler@earthlink.net) >Guardian of DBD::Informix v0.62 -- see http://www.perl.com/CPAN >#include <disclaimer.h> > > > -- David Williams
Jonathan, Thanks for the enlightenment regarding OnWeb. I am happy to hear that there are changes coming for this much anticipated product. Over the past two years the number one download from my site has been the little stuff I have for DBAs. It remains the number one thing people need, DBA tools. I noticed very low interest for my 4GL tools, seems like I get at least 2 or 3 times the downloads of DBA stuff compared to 4GL. So the point being that there is indeed a demand for DBA admin tools for Informix. 4GL does not seem to be a hot topic out there. :-) Anyway, what's also interesting is that I was working on my own "OnWeb" up until the end of August, then I learned that Informix was coming out with their own. So, I basically abandoned my own web tool waiting for OnWeb. I do understand the complexity in building such a beast. The point here is that it is not trivial, and requires a lot more work than meets the eye. The disappointment, as mentioned before, was in the distribution putting things on my system that do not belong. I remain a supporter of web-based admin tools, but not at the increase of risk to a system--especially in a production environment. There also seems to be an increase in the complexity of many of the installations coming out of Informix for UNIX platforms, and most notably, Linux. I find it hard to understand why a simple tar file of the distribution has been complicated with the messy RPMs coming out, which are nothing more than containers for tar files. This extra overhead of RPM complicates the installation and does not make it easier, but simply more difficult than necessary. For example, I have Expect scripts to automate a particular installation. In order to simply install the software I have to first: 1. gunzip the .gz file containing an RPM 2. spend more time with RPM to get the options right to extract the tar file(s) that contain the Informix software. 3. once I've figured out where the RPM software is going to put the tar files and it hasn't overwritten anything valuable because RPM has too many options and not enough documentation, I can then take the tar file containing the informix software and actually perform the installation, by using the simple tar command "tar xvf informixsoftware.tar" and voila out comes the files. 4. Perform the actual installation. Had the software simply been distributed as a tar file I could have skipped steps 2-3, and concentrated on the installation. I have a hierarchy set up with install tars that I can use with Expect, and use an expect script such as: set serial_number AAC#A518469 set serial_key VUVQKU spawn $program expect "DEL" send "\\r" expect "serial" send "$serial_number\\r" expect "KEY" send "$serial_key\\r" expect "RETURN" send "\\r" expect eof In a for-loop I can do something like this overly simplistic rendering: For install in isql c4gl i4gl ids do tar-file=/install/$install.tar run expect -f expect_script.exp done This way I can be doing other things besides having to go through the installation, and create an installation routine that works the same every time. The flaw is in having to unf*** the RPMs and tars as they are currently coming from Informix. I have to first get all the tars in order before actually doing the installation. The other thing to note is that the SDK installation is not consistent with the engine installation. The question asked "Is ClientSDK being installed along with Informix Dynamic Server with Universal Data Option (Release 9, required to be run as user "informix")? (yes or no)' is way too complex, bad grammar, and just plain confusing whether you are or are not installing Universal Server. Instead, the question should be broken up into a statement explaining what the #@$% this means, and then a prompt. Actually it should be removed all together for the 7.x engine, and rewritten for IDS.2000 or whatever it's now called. You might try something like this: echo "This SDK has characteristics for the 9.x engine that are different if the engine is required to be run as user "informix"." Or is it the installation required to be run as user informix??? Way too confusing. Just plain bad. So I always just answer "no" but do not know if this is the right answer or not. Another bad design to the SDK installation is the annoyance of having to copy the damn clientsdkcontent.tar file to the $INFORMIXDIR if I want to reinstall or just plain install it. I should be able to simple run cd $INFORMIXDIR tar xvf clientsdkcontent.tar or tar xvf $INSTALL_FILES/clientsdkcontent.tar and then run the installation script. The install script should not be doing more tar commands to get more tars. It's insanity the way it works. The tar file should be able to live where ever I want it to, and simply run a tar command against it, such as above. I realize at Informix much of what I'm talking about will fall on deaf ears, but consider that there are many more people out there that do not say anything, putting up with this rather than say anything. For even experienced Informix people it is difficult to manage the current installations, imagine new people. It is the real first impression to your company from a technical standpoint, imagine what that does to managing the mindshare. Imagine getting OnWeb, after hearing about it and then more of this installation mess. Thanks, Tim Jonathan Leffler wrote: > > I go on holiday for two weeks and a full scale war breaks out over trivia :-( > > OK. I installed ONWEB 1.00 at the beginning of September and immediately noted that I didn't > really need another copy of either Apache or Perl on my already well loaded system (3 versions of > Perl, 4 versions of Apache with different amounts of different add ons). So I asked the > developers about it, and they have realized that it is not always a good idea, but sometimes it is > a good idea, to have the Apache and Perl with the OnWeb product... > > There are at least two distinct communities who will be using OnWeb - roughly, those who know what > Apache and Perl are, and those who don't. Those who don't know about them -- and they *do* exist > -- benefit from having a works out of the box system. Those who do know about them find another > copy of Apache and Perl is a nuisance. > > What will happen in the future (1.10 and 1.20 releases, where 1.10 is due to be released before > the end of the year) is that the Informix-supplied Apache and Perl will be optional. > > There is now somewhere on the IDN web site information about what you need to do to use a > pre-installed Apache or Perl (or both) with OnWeb. This is a new addition, made after this ruckus > was brought to our attention (thanks Andy for raising the issue; thanks Ted and Ron and John for > getting the info onto IDN). I've not personally checked what it says - the news arrived when I > was 10 minutes late leaving for home. > > The primary problem, incidentally,
Mike Segel <mikey@NOSPAM.KING.OF.MY.DOMAIN.MAPSON.Segel.com> writes: [SNIP] > In fact you really shouldn't have used perl at all, for a production grade product.... WHY? Thomas
Jonathan Leffler wrote: > Paul watson wrote: > > > >>> Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@bellsouth.net> 10/22/99 01:59PM >>> > > > >What on earth possessed you to include your own version of > > >Perl and Apache???? > > > > Because they could not work out how to do it properly > > > [SNIP] > > I go on holiday for two weeks and a full scale war breaks out over trivia :-( > > OK. I installed ONWEB 1.00 at the beginning of September and immediately noted that I didn't > really need another copy of either Apache or Perl on my already well loaded system (3 versions of > Perl, 4 versions of Apache with different amounts of different add ons). So I asked the > developers about it, and they have realized that it is not always a good idea, but sometimes it is > a good idea, to have the Apache and Perl with the OnWeb product... > Uhm actually, no. Its not. You don't need a web server if you did the application right, instead of cobbling some perl scripts together. In fact you really shouldn't have used perl at all, for a production grade product.... But hey, thats another issue. The point is that Informix didn't think things through when introducing this tool. -Mikey
> > Seriously I just wish they'd fire the whole damn marketing department, > and > get on with some advertising like other companies do. Why does > Informix have > to be so f***ed up when it comes to marketing... > > OnWeb goes down in the corporate annuals as another winner like > NewError, > & Universal Data Soldier. OnWeb can now be OnTangled. I-Spy should be > renamed to OnPeek. :-) > Well Tim it looks like you got your wish OnWeb as product no longer exists, it's going to be called 'Server Administrator'. Much easier to remember - NOT Paul Watson # I don't suffer from WF Software Ltd. # stress, I'm just Tel. (+44) 1436 674729 # a carrier Fax. (+44) 1436 678693 # www.wfsoftware.com
In comp.databases.informix Mike Segel wrote: <snip discussion of how Informix OnWeb ships with Perl and Apache included> > > In fact you really shouldn't have used perl at all, for a production > grade product.... > Care to explain that ? /J\\ -- "The Spice Girls don't care if I like them or not because I'm not twelve" - Germaine Greer