Re: IDS Next Version - features wanted.
On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:51:11 -0500, <mosserp@wellsfargo.com> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org >> [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Data Goob >> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:40 AM >> To: informix-list@iiug.org >> Subject: Re: IDS Next Version - features wanted. >> >> david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >> > What features do you want for the next version of IDS? >> > >> > The Key Features in IDS Version 10.00 by Jerry Keesee >> > >> > mentions... >> > >> > - Smooth Upgrade of HDR >> > - Online table re-org >> > - Dynamic Reconfiguration >> > - Auto Update Stats >> > - Auto Disk Mgmt >> > - RAS >> > - Autonomics >> > >> > >> > a) What does Smooth Upgrade of HDR mean? >> > >> > b) What else do people want as features? >> > >> > David. >> > >> I haven't used Informix in at least 5 years so really what I need to >> see is some money spent on marketing. The message needs to be crisp, >> and to the point, not pointed at executive management, but > ><< snip >> > >I disagree -- from my own experience, I think that IBM needs to get out >the Informix message even *MORE* to executive mgmt than they have in the >past. Maybe some adverts in BusinessWeek (US), for example. > >Paul Mosser > Seconded . . . . it seems that the techies already understand. Unfortunately, it's not the techies who hold the purse strings or go golfing . . . .8-) JWC
John Carlson wrote: > On Tue, 31 May 2005 13:51:11 -0500, <mosserp@wellsfargo.com> wrote: > > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org >>>[mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Data Goob >>>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:40 AM >>>To: informix-list@iiug.org >>>Subject: Re: IDS Next Version - features wanted. >>> >>>david@smooth1.co.uk wrote: >>> >>>>What features do you want for the next version of IDS? >>>> >>>>The Key Features in IDS Version 10.00 by Jerry Keesee >>>> >>>>mentions... >>>> >>>>- Smooth Upgrade of HDR >>>>- Online table re-org >>>>- Dynamic Reconfiguration >>>>- Auto Update Stats >>>>- Auto Disk Mgmt >>>>- RAS >>>>- Autonomics >>>> >>>> >>>>a) What does Smooth Upgrade of HDR mean? >>>> >>>>b) What else do people want as features? >>>> >>>>David. >>>> >>> >>>I haven't used Informix in at least 5 years so really what I need to >>>see is some money spent on marketing. The message needs to be crisp, >>>and to the point, not pointed at executive management, but >> >><< snip >> >> >>I disagree -- from my own experience, I think that IBM needs to get out >>the Informix message even *MORE* to executive mgmt than they have in the >>past. Maybe some adverts in BusinessWeek (US), for example. >> >>Paul Mosser >> > > > Seconded . . . . it seems that the techies already understand. > Unfortunately, it's not the techies who hold the purse strings or go > golfing . . . .8-) > > JWC What "techies" understand? Those here in c.d.i? Wooo-hooo! Take a look at the competition ( MySQL for example, MS-SQL-Server ) and take a lesson from what really works. Most of the "executives" and purse strings you talk about are people who grew up on Windows based systems, thinking that UNIX is dead, and now wondering how to get into Linux. They get their MBAs, drooling with their Windows-based systems, and video games, and now they want to conquer the world. But they take their cues from developers just as it has always been the way to do things. Linux and the new world is what they want, but they defer to technical people to make the final cut. If all they hear is DB2, or MS-SQL-Server, or anything-but-your-favorite-db, then that's what they will BUY. Informix went out of business because of ignoring developers and techies, remember???? Or were you too busy, and hiding when that happened? Did you forget already? Executives were the ones preached to the last time around and where are things? In the shitter. Wake up and get with the program. If you don't have a ground-swell of developer momentum you don't have shit. It was all wasted the last time around by a bunch of khaki-pants- shit-for-brains marketing jackasses who didn't have a clue about the technology or how to sell it. They didn't listen. And now you pass off your wisdom in a box. Think outside your Informix box. The world is passing you by, and doesn't give a hoot about Informix until and when it says to the world that it IS important, that it IS the best. This message has to be said, or nobody will ever hear it. Get it? And you can't shout it in a newsgroup, or a blog, you have to shout it in advertising and more than one ad, and really say the words that are not wimpy and vague. Until that happens, all the nice new features are just great technology rotting on the vine. Great stuff that nobody cares about, and nobody is going to use. Forgotten.
"Data Goob" <datagoob@netscape.net> wrote in message news:VCane.1068$rQ2.794@fe61.usenetserver.com... > And now > you pass off your wisdom in a box. Think outside your Informix > box. The world is passing you by, and doesn't give a hoot > about Informix until and when it says to the world that it IS > important, that it IS the best. This message has to be said, > or nobody will ever hear it. Get it? And you can't shout it > in a newsgroup, or a blog, you have to shout it in advertising > and more than one ad, and really say the words that are not > wimpy and vague. Until that happens, all the nice new features > are just great technology rotting on the vine. Great stuff > that nobody cares about, and nobody is going to use. Forgotten. Your analysis is spot on, but you draw the wrong conclusion. As Paul Mosser said, if the people at or near the top have no perception of Informix it won't get selected. That's where the (unfortunately chimeric) advertising should be aimed ...
Neil Truby wrote: > "Data Goob" <datagoob@netscape.net> wrote in message > news:VCane.1068$rQ2.794@fe61.usenetserver.com... > > >> And now >>you pass off your wisdom in a box. Think outside your Informix >>box. The world is passing you by, and doesn't give a hoot >>about Informix until and when it says to the world that it IS >>important, that it IS the best. This message has to be said, >>or nobody will ever hear it. Get it? And you can't shout it >>in a newsgroup, or a blog, you have to shout it in advertising >>and more than one ad, and really say the words that are not >>wimpy and vague. Until that happens, all the nice new features >>are just great technology rotting on the vine. Great stuff >>that nobody cares about, and nobody is going to use. Forgotten. > > > Your analysis is spot on, but you draw the wrong conclusion. As Paul Mosser > said, if the people at or near the top have no perception of Informix it > won't get selected. That's where the (unfortunately chimeric) advertising > should be aimed ... > > Like I said, take a look at what has worked for the past 20 years. Microsoft, Oracle, MySQL, and even Postgres. Most are marketed FIRST TO DEVELOPERS then to executive management. And don't forget what I said about who corporate management is. It's kids with MBAs and such that grew up on WINDOWS. Sure there's a few white hairs making the decision, but it's now all the bedhead haircut crowd moving into management with WINDOWS on their minds, not UNIX. If there is a *NIX involved, it'll probably be "Linux in da house, ya'll". Those managers, like years gone by took their cues from developers and the DBAs to make a decision. I can't count the number of times it was asked "So what do you think?" which tipped it to Informix. Now it's tipped to anything else. So if you think IBM is going to give Informix a "campaign" to both execs and techs, dream on. I think the most if anything you're ever going to get is a token ad in one magazine, and it will say little if anything to anyone, exec or tech. A total waste. Whatever conclusions you people come to here don't really matter, even my opinion doesn't really matter, except to say what a f***ing tragedy Informix has been. It would be a nice quiet death if the product was total shit, but it's a good product, that's the tragedy. By the way, table-level memory management is pretty cool, I'd like to see Informix shift away from a global memory scheme or at least allow "buffer pools" with IDS the way DB2 does. That would be very nice. But today I see no compelling reason to use or recommend Informix. It has no market presence, most of the people that I know that ever heard of it know that somebody bought it or it's dead, and it's on to the next topic of conversation. I can tell the difference between DB2, Informix, Sybase, SQL-Server, MySQL, Oracle, and Informix looks like a lot of trouble compared to these other products for a lot of reasons. Give the market the big reason Informix is important and why people should use Informix instead of the others, and you will no longer have these kinds of discussions--especially with me ;-).