RE: Announcing: The IBM Customer Advisory Council for Informix

Hamilton, Jerry said: > > "If the IIUG were doing its job, there would be no need for a CAC." Well, I'd hate to be taken for an apologist for the jet-setters, but I suspect the CAC and the IIUG are two totally different things and address two different objectives. The IIUG is, I suspect, largely irrelevant to IBM because IBM seems to suffer from a severe case of NIH Syndrome. The CAC is, by the very same token, a very, VERY good sign for Informix, because it means IBM is starting to take it seriously enough to start doing things that it does for DB2. This is all IMHO, of course, I can't really substantiate or prove any of it. :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 wrote: > Hamilton, Jerry said: >> "If the IIUG were doing its job, there would be no need for a CAC." > > Well, I'd hate to be taken for an apologist for the jet-setters, but I > suspect the CAC and the IIUG are two totally different things and address > two different objectives. The IIUG is, I suspect, largely irrelevant to > IBM because IBM seems to suffer from a severe case of NIH Syndrome. The > CAC is, by the very same token, a very, VERY good sign for Informix, > because it means IBM is starting to take it seriously enough to start > doing things that it does for DB2. > > This is all IMHO, of course, I can't really substantiate or prove any of > it. :o) > I think it's also important to note that if there is no participation in the CAC that this will most likely have as much to do with Informix's future as if people **do** get involved. No input will speak as loud as saying something, so it's in everyone's interest to get into the game. It almost smacks of IBM developing a business case for the future of the product based on customer wishes. Scary... very scary... :-)

Double Echo said: > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Hamilton, Jerry said: >>> "If the IIUG were doing its job, there would be no need for a CAC." >> >> Well, I'd hate to be taken for an apologist for the jet-setters, but I >> suspect the CAC and the IIUG are two totally different things and >> address >> two different objectives. The IIUG is, I suspect, largely irrelevant to >> IBM because IBM seems to suffer from a severe case of NIH Syndrome. The >> CAC is, by the very same token, a very, VERY good sign for Informix, >> because it means IBM is starting to take it seriously enough to start >> doing things that it does for DB2. >> >> This is all IMHO, of course, I can't really substantiate or prove any of >> it. :o) > > I think it's also important to note that if there is no participation in > the CAC that this will most likely have as much to do with Informix's > future > as if people **do** get involved. No input will speak as loud as saying > something, so it's in everyone's interest to get into the game. It almost > smacks of IBM developing a business case for the future of the product > based on customer wishes. Scary... very scary... :-) I'm not sure how the CAC works, but I suspect it's more likely to be invitation-only. -- 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 wrote: > Double Echo said: > I'm not sure how the CAC works, but I suspect it's more likely to be > invitation-only. > Oh good. This means we're not out of a job just yet. *<80)