Dimmy vs Dumby: who's right? Or, who is more right? :o)
Not a technical problem thread but a strategy flame war about how IBM should market Informix (IDS): seeding the developer community versus pushing IDS through IBM's own SMB sales force. Daniel Morgan challenged participants to give a compelling business reason the market needs a fourth RDBMS; Serge Rielau answered with analogies (vehicles, kitchen appliances) arguing different workloads, e.g. embedded use in routers, justify specialised engines. Ian Gumby clarified that IBM's local sales teams lack IDS-certified specialists and won't lead with a product they can't support. Cisco's embedded use was cited as proof of demand. The exchange degenerated into insults and no conclusion or resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Dimmy, in essence, feels that IBM needs to seed the developer market. Dumby feels that seeding the developer market is pointless and that IBM needs to seed the SMB market using IBM salesmen, which means he's using a different terminology to Dimmy to start with. I'm interested in how other people feel about this. Personally, I think people in the SMB space (real SMB space, not IBM's rather bizarre definition) want to buy a solution and don't really care about what database it's running on. So for me, it's all about the developers. What does everyone else think? -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Dimmy, in essence, feels that IBM needs to seed the developer market. > Dumby feels that seeding the developer market is pointless and that IBM > needs to seed the SMB market using IBM salesmen, which means he's using > a different terminology to Dimmy to start with. > > I'm interested in how other people feel about this. Personally, I think > people in the SMB space (real SMB space, not IBM's rather bizarre > definition) want to buy a solution and don't really care about what > database it's running on. So for me, it's all about the developers. What > does everyone else think? Take a good look at the market for RDBMS products. There are embedded, OLTP, ODS, and DW systems. There are MB, GB, TB, PB, and soon EB systems. There are home-grown apps and commercial apps like SAP, JDE, PeopleSoft. There are regulatory requirements like SarbOx, GLB, PCI, Basel II. There are feature set differences. And there are total cost of ownership considerations. I'm waiting for someone to make a cogent case for why the market needs more than three products. You can whine, moan, groan, and get your knickers in a twist if you wish but from the standpoint of IT management what compelling case is there for another product? Lets see one or more of you make a business case as to why the market should care. What does the product have that no one else has? Something compelling. Something that will help make a customer more profitable or more efficient than its competitors. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Dimmy, in essence, feels that IBM needs to seed the developer market. >> Dumby feels that seeding the developer market is pointless and that IBM >> needs to seed the SMB market using IBM salesmen, which means he's using >> a different terminology to Dimmy to start with. >> >> I'm interested in how other people feel about this. Personally, I think >> people in the SMB space (real SMB space, not IBM's rather bizarre >> definition) want to buy a solution and don't really care about what >> database it's running on. So for me, it's all about the developers. What >> does everyone else think? >> > > Take a good look at the market for RDBMS products. > > There are embedded, OLTP, ODS, and DW systems. > There are MB, GB, TB, PB, and soon EB systems. > There are home-grown apps and commercial apps like SAP, JDE, PeopleSoft. > There are regulatory requirements like SarbOx, GLB, PCI, Basel II. > There are feature set differences. > And there are total cost of ownership considerations. > > I'm waiting for someone to make a cogent case for why the market needs > more than three products. > Because those three products will eventually stop innovating. They will stop competing on price. They will become complacent and lazy. Goodness, Daniel, don't they teach professors ANYTHING these days? > You can whine, moan, groan, and get your knickers in a twist if you > wish but from the standpoint of IT management what compelling case > is there for another product? > Ask Cisco. Clearly, the big red swinging dick wasn't good enough for the job. > Lets see one or more of you make a business case as to why the market > should care. What does the product have that no one else has? Something > compelling. Something that will help make a customer more profitable or > more efficient than its competitors. > That's not our job. That's IBM's job. Now fuck off back to your Oracle masters, there's a good little shill. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >>> Dimmy, in essence, feels that IBM needs to seed the developer market. >>> Dumby feels that seeding the developer market is pointless and that >>> IBM needs to seed the SMB market using IBM salesmen, which means he's >>> using a different terminology to Dimmy to start with. >>> >>> I'm interested in how other people feel about this. Personally, I >>> think people in the SMB space (real SMB space, not IBM's rather >>> bizarre definition) want to buy a solution and don't really care >>> about what database it's running on. So for me, it's all about the >>> developers. What does everyone else think? >>> >> >> Take a good look at the market for RDBMS products. >> >> There are embedded, OLTP, ODS, and DW systems. >> There are MB, GB, TB, PB, and soon EB systems. >> There are home-grown apps and commercial apps like SAP, JDE, PeopleSoft. >> There are regulatory requirements like SarbOx, GLB, PCI, Basel II. >> There are feature set differences. >> And there are total cost of ownership considerations. >> >> I'm waiting for someone to make a cogent case for why the market needs >> more than three products. >> > > Because those three products will eventually stop innovating. They will > stop competing on price. They will become complacent and lazy. > > Goodness, Daniel, don't they teach professors ANYTHING these days? Please note that I didn't mention the names of those "three" products because the issue is not about product A versus product B. So let's assume you are correct. Let's assume there are only two: Airbus and Boeing. Does your argument stand? Let's assume you are correct ... are you expecting CTOs and CIOs to buy brand 4 only because at some date in the future it "might" change the business dynamics of the industry? Not exactly what I asked for ... a compelling argument. >> You can whine, moan, groan, and get your knickers in a twist if you >> wish but from the standpoint of IT management what compelling case >> is there for another product? >> > > Ask Cisco. Clearly, the big red swinging dick wasn't good enough for the > job. Do you think Cisco has only a single RDBMS? Do you think they run their CRM, HR, and finances on Informix? I can't think of too many companies, of any size, that use only a single RDBMS. Not exactly what I asked for ... a compelling argument. >> Lets see one or more of you make a business case as to why the market >> should care. What does the product have that no one else has? Something >> compelling. Something that will help make a customer more profitable or >> more efficient than its competitors. >> > That's not our job. That's IBM's job. Now fuck off back to your Oracle > masters, there's a good little shill. Actually it is your job in one sense ... if you can't come up with a good reason why would you expect anyone else to do so? Not to be argumentative but "Just so you don't have to learn something new?" -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dimmy, in essence, feels that IBM needs to seed the developer market. >>>> Dumby feels that seeding the developer market is pointless and that >>>> IBM needs to seed the SMB market using IBM salesmen, which means he's >>>> using a different terminology to Dimmy to start with. >>>> >>>> I'm interested in how other people feel about this. Personally, I >>>> think people in the SMB space (real SMB space, not IBM's rather >>>> bizarre definition) want to buy a solution and don't really care >>>> about what database it's running on. So for me, it's all about the >>>> developers. What does everyone else think? >>>> >>>> >>> Take a good look at the market for RDBMS products. >>> >>> There are embedded, OLTP, ODS, and DW systems. >>> There are MB, GB, TB, PB, and soon EB systems. >>> There are home-grown apps and commercial apps like SAP, JDE, PeopleSoft. >>> There are regulatory requirements like SarbOx, GLB, PCI, Basel II. >>> There are feature set differences. >>> And there are total cost of ownership considerations. >>> >>> I'm waiting for someone to make a cogent case for why the market needs >>> more than three products. >>> >>> >> Because those three products will eventually stop innovating. They will >> stop competing on price. They will become complacent and lazy. >> >> Goodness, Daniel, don't they teach professors ANYTHING these days? >> > > Please note that I didn't mention the names of those "three" products > because the issue is not about product A versus product B. > > So let's assume you are correct. Let's assume there are only two: > Airbus and Boeing. Does your argument stand? Let's assume you are > correct ... are you expecting CTOs and CIOs to buy brand 4 only > because at some date in the future it "might" change the business > dynamics of the industry? > > Not exactly what I asked for ... a compelling argument. > > >>> You can whine, moan, groan, and get your knickers in a twist if you >>> wish but from the standpoint of IT management what compelling case >>> is there for another product? >>> >>> >> Ask Cisco. Clearly, the big red swinging dick wasn't good enough for the >> job. >> > > Do you think Cisco has only a single RDBMS? Do you think they run their > CRM, HR, and finances on Informix? I can't think of too many companies, > of any size, that use only a single RDBMS. > > Not exactly what I asked for ... a compelling argument. > You're dissembling, Danny boy. Cisco needed a weapons-grade embedded database and the big three couldn't do it. End of story. That's a compelling reason for more than three databases, right there. Innovation. Resorting to your endless supply of wind and sophistry, you would simply keep redrawing the boundaries on what constitutes "compelling", forever if I let you. Go fuck yourself, instead. > >>> Lets see one or more of you make a business case as to why the market >>> should care. What does the product have that no one else has? Something >>> compelling. Something that will help make a customer more profitable or >>> more efficient than its competitors. >>> >>> >> That's not our job. That's IBM's job. Now fuck off back to your Oracle >> masters, there's a good little shill. >> > > Actually it is your job in one sense ... if you can't come up with a > good reason why would you expect anyone else to do so? Not to be > argumentative but "Just so you don't have to learn something new?" > When some cunt pays me to do it, I'll make it my job. Until then, you can tell me it's my job until you're blue in the face and I'll just keep calling you a cunt. Were you born this stupid, or did you take a course at university? -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> DA Morgan wrote: >> >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Dimmy, in essence, feels that IBM needs to seed the developer market. >>>> Dumby feels that seeding the developer market is pointless and that >>>> IBM needs to seed the SMB market using IBM salesmen, which means he's >>>> using a different terminology to Dimmy to start with. >>>> >>>> I'm interested in how other people feel about this. Personally, I >>>> think people in the SMB space (real SMB space, not IBM's rather >>>> bizarre definition) want to buy a solution and don't really care >>>> about what database it's running on. So for me, it's all about the >>>> developers. What does everyone else think? >>>> >>>> >>> Take a good look at the market for RDBMS products. >>> >>> There are embedded, OLTP, ODS, and DW systems. >>> There are MB, GB, TB, PB, and soon EB systems. >>> There are home-grown apps and commercial apps like SAP, JDE, PeopleSoft. >>> There are regulatory requirements like SarbOx, GLB, PCI, Basel II. >>> There are feature set differences. >>> And there are total cost of ownership considerations. >>> >>> I'm waiting for someone to make a cogent case for why the market needs >>> more than three products. >>> >>> >> Because those three products will eventually stop innovating. They will >> stop competing on price. They will become complacent and lazy. >> >> Goodness, Daniel, don't they teach professors ANYTHING these days? >> > > Please note that I didn't mention the names of those "three" products > because the issue is not about product A versus product B. > > So let's assume you are correct. Let's assume there are only two: > Airbus and Boeing. Does your argument stand? Let's assume you are > correct ... are you expecting CTOs and CIOs to buy brand 4 only > because at some date in the future it "might" change the business > dynamics of the industry? > > Not exactly what I asked for ... a compelling argument. > Missed this. Mind you, the old Seattle Socialist has missed the point a million times before. Let me rephrase it like this: IBM is selling IDS, not as much as we'd all like and there are things they could do better, but despite your very best efforts as an ACE Director, Danny boy, people are still buying IDS. Not because it might change the rules in the future, but because it changes the rules right now. Run along now, there's a good little shill. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com
DA Morgan wrote: > Take a good look at the market for RDBMS products. > > There are embedded, OLTP, ODS, and DW systems. > There are MB, GB, TB, PB, and soon EB systems. > There are home-grown apps and commercial apps like SAP, JDE, PeopleSoft. > There are regulatory requirements like SarbOx, GLB, PCI, Basel II. > There are feature set differences. > And there are total cost of ownership considerations. > I'm waiting for someone to make a cogent case for why the market needs > more than three products. Every day on teh road I see: Smart cars, sport cars, light truck, heavy trucks, 18 wheelers, minivan's, ambulances, farm tractors, firetrucks, dump trucks, compacts, station wagons, SUVs, buses. And I don't even go to those special places where they have those monster trucks from the discovery channel (or tanks, ...). Why would I put a DBMS with all the gunk needed for SOX, Warehouse, OLAP etc, etc into a router? This is why silly mySQL is so popular. This is why there is Netezza, etc, etc. I think your argument would hold a bit more water if a multi-purpose RDBMS could be physically decomposed into just the pieces needed for its task. I'm not aware that is done (or even feasible). So you need offerings for different areas of the market and in each of the market there is room for competition. Voila. Another metaphore: My oven can boil eggs, rice, make coffee, re-heat my left overs and bake my croissant in addition to baking that 8 pound turkey. Yet I do have: * a toaster-oven * a toaster * a stove * a microwave (2 actually...) * a rice-cooker * a coffee machine * an electric grill * a BBQ * a fondue set * AND finally an oven Luckily I'm not into waffles, grilled subs, deep frying, raclet, or espresso... Now the important part here is that my toaster doesn't have ambitions to become an oven and neither does my oven sulk when it gets ignored for breakfast! Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
On Aug 30, 12:40 pm, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > Dimmy, in essence, feels that IBM needs to seed the developer market. > Dumby feels that seeding the developer market is pointless and that IBM > needs to seed the SMB market using IBM salesmen, which means he's using > a different terminology to Dimmy to start with. > > I'm interested in how other people feel about this. Personally, I think > people in the SMB space (real SMB space, not IBM's rather bizarre > definition) want to buy a solution and don't really care about what > database it's running on. So for me, it's all about the developers. What > does everyone else think? > > -- > Cheers, > Obnoxio the Clown > > http://obotheclown.blogspot.com Sigh. Poor OTC doesn't quite get what I'm saying so I had better clarify it yet again. You're absolutely right that what I am saying is that the SMB market buys a solution. They buy the solution that they can afford. Since IBM has pushed their partners away, (SAP, Lawson, etc ..) Informix is no longer embedded in their solutions. Cisco? Show me an SMB (Not IBM's definition which include whitespace customers) that can afford a Cisco solution that has IDS embedded in it. What I am recommending is that IBM train their sales staff to be able to sell and support IDS. They can't. Since I'm in Chicago (No big secret), I can count the number of IDS certified IT specialists within 500 miles of Chicago on one hand. 2 in Detroit(MI), 1 in Chicago(IL), none in OH, IN, WI, MN, MO ... You get the idea. The local sales teams will not lead with a product/solution that they can't support locally. What I am also recommending, with respect to "seeding" is to do something Terry Ralph started to do long ago in the UK. Unfortunately, those within the IDS management seem to be unable or unwilling to work through the IBM maze and bureaucracy to do this. Of course, since the clown asked, "its all about the developers..." What developers? Those who work for the local market's Fortune 500 companies or those who are working for a start up that are creating solutions for the SMB. Define what you mean by "The developer".
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>> You can whine, moan, groan, and get your knickers in a twist if you >>>> wish but from the standpoint of IT management what compelling case >>>> is there for another product? >>>> >>> Ask Cisco. Clearly, the big red swinging dick wasn't good enough for >>> the job. >>> >> >> Do you think Cisco has only a single RDBMS? Do you think they run their >> CRM, HR, and finances on Informix? I can't think of too many companies, >> of any size, that use only a single RDBMS. >> >> Not exactly what I asked for ... a compelling argument. >> > > You're dissembling, Danny boy. Cisco needed a weapons-grade embedded > database and the big three couldn't do it. End of story. That's a > compelling reason for more than three databases, right there. Innovation. Not at all. If Cisco is using Informix as an embedded database that's wonderful. But is it a compelling argument? Do you think a campaign by IBM turning the bright lights on "Cisco chose it for an embedded database" is going to turn things around? > Resorting to your endless supply of wind and sophistry, you would simply > keep redrawing the boundaries on what constitutes "compelling", forever > if I let you. Go fuck yourself, instead. Not exactly a compelling argument supporting your product. >>>> Lets see one or more of you make a business case as to why the market >>>> should care. What does the product have that no one else has? Something >>>> compelling. Something that will help make a customer more profitable or >>>> more efficient than its competitors. >>>> >>> That's not our job. That's IBM's job. Now fuck off back to your >>> Oracle masters, there's a good little shill. >> >> Actually it is your job in one sense ... if you can't come up with a >> good reason why would you expect anyone else to do so? Not to be >> argumentative but "Just so you don't have to learn something new?" > > When some cunt pays me to do it, I'll make it my job. Until then, you > can tell me it's my job until you're blue in the face and I'll just keep > calling you a cunt. > > Were you born this stupid, or did you take a course at university? So you are unable to come up with a single compelling argument to support the sales of the product to a potential customer. Why didn't you just say so. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan said: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >>>>> You can whine, moan, groan, and get your knickers in a twist if you >>>>> wish but from the standpoint of IT management what compelling case >>>>> is there for another product? >>>>> >>>> Ask Cisco. Clearly, the big red swinging dick wasn't good enough for >>>> the job. >>>> >>> >>> Do you think Cisco has only a single RDBMS? Do you think they run their >>> CRM, HR, and finances on Informix? I can't think of too many companies, >>> of any size, that use only a single RDBMS. >>> >>> Not exactly what I asked for ... a compelling argument. >>> >> >> You're dissembling, Danny boy. Cisco needed a weapons-grade embedded >> database and the big three couldn't do it. End of story. That's a >> compelling reason for more than three databases, right there. >> Innovation. > > Not at all. If Cisco is using Informix as an embedded database that's > wonderful. But is it a compelling argument? Do you think a campaign by > IBM turning the bright lights on "Cisco chose it for an embedded > database" is going to turn things around? > >> Resorting to your endless supply of wind and sophistry, you would simply >> keep redrawing the boundaries on what constitutes "compelling", forever >> if I let you. Go fuck yourself, instead. > > Not exactly a compelling argument supporting your product. I rest my case. >>>>> Lets see one or more of you make a business case as to why the market >>>>> should care. What does the product have that no one else has? >>>>> Something >>>>> compelling. Something that will help make a customer more profitable >>>>> or >>>>> more efficient than its competitors. >>>>> >>>> That's not our job. That's IBM's job. Now fuck off back to your >>>> Oracle masters, there's a good little shill. >>> >>> Actually it is your job in one sense ... if you can't come up with a >>> good reason why would you expect anyone else to do so? Not to be >>> argumentative but "Just so you don't have to learn something new?" >> >> When some cunt pays me to do it, I'll make it my job. Until then, you >> can tell me it's my job until you're blue in the face and I'll just keep >> calling you a cunt. >> >> Were you born this stupid, or did you take a course at university? > > So you are unable to come up with a single compelling argument to > support the sales of the product to a potential customer. Why didn't > you just say so. Like I said, whatever I came up with, you would just say "that's not compelling", ad infinitum. So, go fuck yourself, you pompous, jumped-up old troll. -- Bye now, Obnoxio http://obotheclown.blogspot.com/
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Like I said, whatever I came up with, you would just say "that's not > compelling", ad infinitum. > > So, go fuck yourself, you pompous, jumped-up old troll. > I think we have enough people to get a group rate on an anger management training class! *<8o) Smack!! sit down you c*** !