Re: Let me be the first

Double Echo said: > Until somebody pushes out a different description, Record-locking is > synonymous with row-locking, this is what the market thinks. You can > argue all you want against that, but it's the market perception that will > again drive people away from the product. Ah! But this IS IBM. The market is wrong, IBM is right. If IBM says that record locking is a security mechanism, who are we to argue different? How very dare us, eh? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Double Echo said: >> Until somebody pushes out a different description, Record-locking is >> synonymous with row-locking, this is what the market thinks. You can >> argue all you want against that, but it's the market perception that will >> again drive people away from the product. > > Ah! But this IS IBM. The market is wrong, IBM is right. If IBM says that > record locking is a security mechanism, who are we to argue different? How > very dare us, eh? > They must have confused the "lock" part to mean you need a padlock or some kind of security. :-) Sigh...This sucks so fucking bad... Another great moment in the cursed history of Informix... passed from one hand of inept fools to the next... doomed... So much for great intentions...