Re: IDS TRIAL ( not trail ) download.

david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: > Well I have seen the release notes for IDS 10.00.UC4 but it is still > not > on the trail download site... > > why the delay? > > It's very nice of IBM to make me click through several pages to see if > it has been put up their yet..and to send me an email each time..but > why is the trial version not up there the same time as the IDS > Information Centre > gets updated? > ( Isn't it a TRIAL download not a TRAIL download? Of course having to wade through each of the pages could be considered a trail download but maybe we'd still think of it as a TRIAL not a TRAIL. ) Incidentally, it does bring up something that has always been curious about Informix products in general. Why isn't there a standard naming nomenclature for Informix products? Why isn't there a standard compression method and payload delivery for Informix products? I noticed three different compression methods for the various products, for Linux. .gz and .Z . I don't even know if my Linux has an uncompress command, gzip or bunzip2 are the standard. Have them all the same, tar.gz for UNIX/Linux, and .zip for Windows. If maximum compression is insisted upon, then go for bunzip2 format, but only if you really can't just use .tar.gz. If you have to use compress format ( .Z ) then use it for UNIX, but not for Linux platforms, nobody uses compress on Linux when you can use gzip. David, since you asked for some feature requests, add this to your list: 1. Prefix all informix product downloads the same, i.e. ifmx.whatever.tar.gz or informix.whatever.tar.gz with the release number--which seems to show up on some of the downloads but not others. Make them consistent. 2. Use a standard compression method for all payloads, i.e. tar.gz Winzip can handle TAR and GZIPped files. Windows payloads seem to be better constructed, but even these should be given a once over to make sure they're consistent. Use .Z only for UNIX platforms that probably don't have gzip or bunzip2. 3. Download page(s). This should not be such a mess. IBM needs to really clean this up, and get away from being so lazy. Instead of a search-style page that is cumbersome to read, sub-divide the downloads by Operating System and don't display every know version of the product, just the latest, like a lot of other downloads do, like on Source Forge. If you want older versions then take them to a search page. It's so damn confusing what to download, and in many cases I forgot what I was downloading or couldn't be sure it was the right choice after too many choices.

Double Echo wrote: > I noticed three different compression methods for the various products, > for Linux. .gz and .Z . I don't even know if my Linux has an uncompress > command, gzip or bunzip2 are the standard. Have them all the same, > tar.gz for UNIX/Linux, and .zip for Windows. If maximum compression is > insisted upon, then go for bunzip2 format, but only if you really can't > just use .tar.gz. If you have to use compress format ( .Z ) then use it > for UNIX, but not for Linux platforms, nobody uses compress on Linux when > you can use gzip. You can use gzip (gunzip) to decompress files created with compress (.Z), as well as uncompress itself, of course. A .tar.gz file is typically 10-20% bigger than a .tar.bz2 file of the same material. Once upon a time, there was a program called pack (and unpack, and pcat) that used the suffix .z (lower-case). It was nowhere near as efficient as compress (.Z), which in turn is not as efficient as gzip, which is usually less efficient than bzip2. The zip program - available on (or for) Windows and Unix/Linux - is about as efficient as gzip. Personally, I still use gzip when I distribute SQLCMD, mainly because I always have done, and I use the .tgz suffix to boot. For DBD::Informix, I use .tar.gz because everything in the Perl world does. Otherwise, I use bzip2 unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. And I typically uncompress and then compress (with bzip2) anything that isn't suppplied as a bzip2 file, simply to save the space. Doubly so with the older Informix software. The latest versions are mainly compressed material already and recompressing them does nothing significant to save space. Note that GNU TAR 1.15.1 has built-in support for bzip2 (-j to create), and auto-detects the compressor program for decompression. That permits you to type: tar -xf tarfile1.tgz tar -xf tarfile2.tar.gz tar -xf tarfile3.tar.bz2 ... All are detected and managed correctly. -- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@earthlink.net, jleffler@us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2005.02 -- http://dbi.perl.org/

Jonathan Leffler wrote: > > You can use gzip (gunzip) to decompress files created with compress > (.Z), as well as uncompress itself, of course. > > A .tar.gz file is typically 10-20% bigger than a .tar.bz2 file of the > same material. > > Once upon a time, there was a program called pack (and unpack, and pcat) > that used the suffix .z (lower-case). It was nowhere near as efficient > as compress (.Z), which in turn is not as efficient as gzip, which is > usually less efficient than bzip2. The zip program - available on (or > for) Windows and Unix/Linux - is about as efficient as gzip. > > Personally, I still use gzip when I distribute SQLCMD, mainly because I > always have done, and I use the .tgz suffix to boot. For DBD::Informix, > I use .tar.gz because everything in the Perl world does. Otherwise, I > use bzip2 unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise. And I > typically uncompress and then compress (with bzip2) anything that isn't > suppplied as a bzip2 file, simply to save the space. Doubly so with the > older Informix software. The latest versions are mainly compressed > material already and recompressing them does nothing significant to save > space. > > Note that GNU TAR 1.15.1 has built-in support for bzip2 (-j to create), > and auto-detects the compressor program for decompression. That permits > you to type: > > tar -xf tarfile1.tgz > tar -xf tarfile2.tar.gz > tar -xf tarfile3.tar.bz2 > ... > > All are detected and managed correctly. > Yes, good points, but if I could be so bold as to reintroduce my other main 'sticking' point, was that many of the products remain inconsistent in their naming of the payload, and the delivery is cumbersome to say the least. It is also more realistic to think that the software delivery mechanisms at IBM could be fixed, as a real priority, over some of the other challenges that have been talked about, such as marketing. Maybe improving delivery of product could be a first step towards improving access to the products, which in turn leads to more usage, more awareness of product, etc etc. The easier you make it to get the product into the hands of those that may want it, the better the chances are that YOUR product will be used vs somebody else's. And, if IBM is willing enough to even broach the idea of a 're-branding' as has been announced, it certainly couldn't hurt to clean up the web site so that it isn't so damn messy and muddled.

Double Echo said: > > And, if IBM is willing enough > to even broach the idea of a 're-branding' as has been announced, it > certainly couldn't hurt to clean up the web site so that it isn't so > damn messy and muddled. I can't believe that someone finds IBM's website difficult to use. :o| -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message news:mailman.19.1135849686.740.informix-list@iiug.org... > > I can't believe that someone finds IBM's website difficult to use. :o| Of all the myriad of things I hate about it, perhaps the worst is when trying to find something (sales, support) specific to one's own country or location. I start off in, say, www.ibm.co.uk, click on a couple of likely-looking links and - Hey Presto! - I'm in the worldwide site again, which basically means useless-to-me 1-800 numbers (as "worldwide" is of course synonymous with "American"). Arrrgggghhhhhh! An IBM UK marketing exec recently told me that there is a UK Informix site set up. I challenge anyone to navigate to it from www.ibm.com or www.ibm.co.uk, i.e. without already knowing the URL.

www.ibm.co.uk search for informix and from the list I get http://www-306.ibm.com/software/info/ecatalog/en_GB/products/F106034N08119V60.html I then also see the "call me now" referred to in another thread but it is a UK phone number this time

"Captain Pedantic" <theharlequin36@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:41i93iF1f6i8nU1@individual.net... > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.19.1135849686.740.informix-list@iiug.org... > An IBM UK marketing exec recently told me that there is a UK Informix site > set up. I challenge anyone to navigate to it from www.ibm.com or > www.ibm.co.uk, i.e. without already knowing the URL. Just go to www.informix.co.uk :-) -- Neil Truby t:01932 724027 Director m:07798 811708 Ardenta Limited e:neil.truby@ardenta.com

Captain Pedantic wrote: > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@serendipita.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.19.1135849686.740.informix-list@iiug.org... >> I can't believe that someone finds IBM's website difficult to use. :o| > > Of all the myriad of things I hate about it, perhaps the worst is when > trying to find something (sales, support) specific to one's own country or > location. I start off in, say, www.ibm.co.uk, click on a couple of > likely-looking links and - Hey Presto! - I'm in the worldwide site again, > which basically means useless-to-me 1-800 numbers (as "worldwide" is of > course synonymous with "American"). > Hmmmmm. Maybe you should try the MySQL site, they're non-American. Or even Microsoft, I think they're kind of non-American too. 8-) > Arrrgggghhhhhh! > Yeah, too bad Informix is/was an American product, that really sucks, and to think that the Europeans are more loyal to Informix than Americans are. That is very ironic. Maybe the IIUG can help you. :-) They're international too. > An IBM UK marketing exec recently told me that there is a UK Informix site > set up. I challenge anyone to navigate to it from www.ibm.com or > www.ibm.co.uk, i.e. without already knowing the URL. > > Good luck!