Re: Informix in the news! Part Deux...
Michael Segel wrote: > Michael Segel wrote: > > >>Sorry if this seems a bit late. >>UUNET aka MCI was having trouble with their news feeds and trashed some of >>my messages/posts. >> >>Ok having said that. >>I'm sorry for the misleading subject line. >> >>If you didn't already see it, the Register had an article on IBM SWG's >>tech analyst conference. >> >>The guy from Bloor usually posts positive things about IBM... >>You can read his report here: >>http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2005/12/07/ibm_information_management/ >> > > Sorry for the part deux. > I didn't want to spend a lot of time typing only to have the article get > barfed on me. (Thanks MCI!) > > Yet I digress. > > The point of this series of posts is to point out that while on one hand IBM > is telling Stu and the IIUG that Informix is a critical path to their > future and that its the OLTP database of choice, that message isn't getting > out to anyone. > > What bothers me the most is that I do believe that those at IBM working with > the IIUG were and are sincere in their efforts. > > I also believe that IBM does want to see Informix stay around and is willing > to clean up some of the damage caused by J. P. and others. > > This is an example of why I am running for the IIUG Board. > > I believe that we can stop this shooting ourselves in the foot and that if > IBM is truly sincere and is willing to make a minor investment in man power > and some materials, we (IBM and the IIUG) can hopefully stop the damage > from progressing, and reverse the trend. (While some may compare Informix > to the Titanic, I would disagree. The fat lady hasn't started singing since > she's too big to fit on any of the life rafts and will be left behind. ;-) > > Thoughts anyone? > > Or am I the only one getting peeved over this type of action from IBM? > > -Gumby > (Yeah, Gumby is coming back. ;-) Maybe I should start a blog? Now wouldn't > that be scary? ;-) If IBM wants to stop the hemmorhaging they are going to have to make a rock solid commitment to the product and provide a long-term road map. Anything less is just happy-talk and Informix's customer base will be left with a choice of DB2, Oracle, or the fate of those that choose to stay with Pick. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
DA Morgan wrote: > > If IBM wants to stop the hemmorhaging they are going to have to make a > rock solid commitment to the product and provide a long-term road map. > Anything less is just happy-talk and Informix's customer base will be > left with a choice of DB2, Oracle, or the fate of those that choose to > stay with Pick. It is rather interesting that even Derby is getting along better than IDS in mindshare these days. It's easy to understand why, there is no other real competitor in the Java db space now that Derby is open source. It just negates the need to look elsewhere unless there is some compelling reason to. Plus Derby is being bundled in as a no-brainer with several Java application tools. But it points out the importance of branding, and what the brand represents. The article had mentioned " The Information Management group is the only part of the Software Group that is not known by its brand name." This is indeed the bipolar , dual-core nature of the problem. IBM can't change the DB2 brand without implying that there is a brand problem with DB2 as the brand, because the-brand-is-the-product. Thusly, you can't have an IDS in the DB2 brand. People get this point without thinking. This is why IDS will continue to have problems. IDS is its own brand. Children can get this point, it's confusing why IBM doesn't just admit it. It's unfortunate that Informix could not be sold off to a new set of owners, who could perpetuate the Informix brand, and end the obvious confusion. IBM has too much invested in IDS in the short-term, but until the IDS brand can truly stand on its own it will forever be a question of its surviving in the db market. IBM must sit on it, only a fool would showcase their competition and dilute their top brand by showing IDS as a peer product. It just doesn't make sense. Of course there's always an open-source play, why not create the Informix Group, an open-source organization just like Apache or others, and have Informix Group own the product as an open-source product. Apache is the number ONE web server coming out of Open Source, think about it.
Double Echo wrote: > It is rather interesting that even Derby is getting along better than > IDS in mindshare these days. It's easy to understand why, there is no ... Hey Tim Schaefer. Another sock puppet of yours :-)
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:35:40 -0800, DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote: >Michael Segel wrote: >> Michael Segel wrote: >> Uncle Mikey is back???? where's Gumby?? JWC