Re: These crazy emails about IDS to DB2 conversion

"Tim Schaefer" <tim@spamethnot.com> wrote in message news:aS4Wb.70395$uk5.47108@fe08.usenetserver.com... > Hmmmm. I'm sensing some jealousy... Informix came from 'merica, > then DB2, looks like in the long-run you'll continue to just > take it. Same for Linux, which came from UNIX, which came from > 'merica. > I just get teary eyed at the thought of how great my country is! > Excuse me now I have to go to work without wearing a coat today, > it's so nice and warm here in FLORIDA EAT YOUR HEART OUT CLOWN. Passing in dignfied fashion over the "My country's nicer than yours" debate, and pausing only to point out that, as the great French philosipher Arsene Wenger once observed, "Everyone thinks he has the prettiest wife at home". (Except me of course!): ... Do you , Dear Reader, see no dangers for IBM in this attitude ("If it had 'DB2' in the name I wouldn't go near it, even if it was really Informix...."), or do you think it's easy to dismiss as the rantings of a bitter techie, and unlikely to be reflected by a real decision-maker?

Neil Truby wrote: > "Tim Schaefer" <tim@spamethnot.com> wrote in message > news:aS4Wb.70395$uk5.47108@fe08.usenetserver.com... >> Hmmmm. I'm sensing some jealousy... Informix came from 'merica, >> then DB2, looks like in the long-run you'll continue to just >> take it. Same for Linux, which came from UNIX, which came from >> 'merica. >> I just get teary eyed at the thought of how great my country is! >> Excuse me now I have to go to work without wearing a coat today, >> it's so nice and warm here in FLORIDA EAT YOUR HEART OUT CLOWN. > > Passing in dignfied fashion over the "My country's nicer than yours" > debate, and pausing only to point out that, as the great French > philosipher Arsene Wenger once observed, "Everyone thinks he has the > prettiest wife at home". (Except me of course!): ... Oh, I don't know. I thought your wife was rather fetching, myself. And wasn't he a philosopher? > Do you , Dear Reader, see no dangers for IBM in this attitude ("If it had > 'DB2' in the name I wouldn't go near it, even if it was really > Informix...."), or do you think it's easy to dismiss as the rantings of a > bitter techie, and unlikely to be reflected by a real decision-maker? It's easy to dismiss as the rantings of a bitter techie, because it's just how I feel. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though. Since the acquisition of Informix I have been forced into dealings not only with Informixers, but also with Blue Blooded Lifetime IBMers. They have all pretty much been nice, decent, normal people, but somehow dealing with IBM is just excruciating, especially when compared to the Good Old Days. I can see why a lot of small to medium businesses would rather forgo Informix to avoid dealing with IBM. Still, no great loss to IBM, I'm sure. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c0d3kb$15opej$1@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de... > Neil Truby wrote: > > > > Passing in dignfied fashion over the "My country's nicer than yours" > > debate, and pausing only to point out that, as the great French > > philosipher Arsene Wenger once observed, "Everyone thinks he has the > > prettiest wife at home". (Except me of course!): ... > > Oh, I don't know. I thought your wife was rather fetching, myself. And > wasn't he a philosopher? Actually, he's the coach of Arsenal Football Club, noted for his ability to see the wrong decision given against his team across a crowded pitch on a foggy night and with 22 players, a ref and a linesman in the way, but certain to be curiously "unsighted" should one of his own players launch a machete attack in broad daylight at a distance of 2 metres. > Since the acquisition of Informix I have been forced into dealings not only > with Informixers, but also with Blue Blooded Lifetime IBMers. They have all > pretty much been nice, decent, normal people, but somehow dealing with IBM > is just excruciating, especially when compared to the Good Old Days. I can > see why a lot of small to medium businesses would rather forgo Informix to > avoid dealing with IBM. Still, no great loss to IBM, I'm sure. Not sure if this is irony. IBM is spending millions promulgating its "We Love SMB" message at the moment, so presumably they do care very much indeed, or at least have a directive to pretend to care. Last summer, after consuming the best part of a couple of bottles of wine with aforementioned fetching wife, I emailed the Head Honcho of IBM UK pointing out that, just occasionally, the expensive "We Love SMB" message can just be a tiny bit at odds with the reality of the way in which small customers and partners are treated down here on Planet Earth. He hasn't actually replied as yet ...!

I thought the comment about not going near DB2 was Neanderthal in its origins. ( Or Stonehenge, Old School, etc. ) I think IBM sees the world differently than Informix peoples do, they see a world of opportunity, Informix people see a future without their beloved database engine. I personally LIVE without Informix on any system I work on, at home or at work, having mourned the loss and have been living post-informix now for the past 4 years. Sure I miss it, but the market today could not care less about Informix. So, to stand up like mice in defiance of the Eagle or the Owl that is about to pounce on them is futile for Informix people. I can only thank Informix for a great education in data base engine design and operation. Informix took some of its 7.x design from DB2 in its infancy, and adapted it. Now DB2 is taking Informix in its rebirth. The reality I see today for businesses is that they want something that simply works simply, and if that comes at a price of performance management then so be it. The bar to jump over is now SQL-Server, and Oracle, everything else is irrelevant. The database market is being redefined. Sure, MySQL has a place, guess what it replaced? Informix-SE. I have production work on MySQL that is not appropriate or even possible with SQL-Server, but MySQL has limitations that I can't use it for other things. The crop of available talent to work on systems has changed too, managers need systems that can be run by a new tech crowd that doesn't know shell-script, and would rather solve problems inside SQL, instead of the world I came from where we solved as many problems as we could outside the database, and then, only when absolutely necessary did we manipulate data inside the database. If I hand you three slips of paper, each one having a brand, SQL-Server, DB2, and Oracle, what will you pick for the enterprise? You will begin to understand the post-informix world. After a careful review of these three, DB2 scales better, embraces open-systems, works a lot like Informix, and can MPP cluster "certified" up to 1000 servers sans XPS. Oracle has only shown 8 cluster capability, 10G is still smokeware, and not nearly as flexible in architecture as DB2. Take Informix out of your world and you'll begin to understand. Tim "Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:c0cqpo$16752r$1@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de... > "Tim Schaefer" <tim@spamethnot.com> wrote in message > news:aS4Wb.70395$uk5.47108@fe08.usenetserver.com... > > Hmmmm. I'm sensing some jealousy... Informix came from 'merica, > > then DB2, looks like in the long-run you'll continue to just > > take it. Same for Linux, which came from UNIX, which came from > > 'merica. > > I just get teary eyed at the thought of how great my country is! > > Excuse me now I have to go to work without wearing a coat today, > > it's so nice and warm here in FLORIDA EAT YOUR HEART OUT CLOWN. > > Passing in dignfied fashion over the "My country's nicer than yours" debate, > and pausing only to point out that, as the great French philosipher Arsene > Wenger once observed, "Everyone thinks he has the prettiest wife at home". > (Except me of course!): ... > > Do you , Dear Reader, see no dangers for IBM in this attitude ("If it had > 'DB2' in the name I wouldn't go near it, even if it was really > Informix...."), or do you think it's easy to dismiss as the rantings of a > bitter techie, and unlikely to be reflected by a real decision-maker? > >

"Tim Schaefer" <tim@spamethnot.com> wrote in message news:BDpWb.14560$Lg6.9727@fe17.usenetserver.com... > If I hand you three slips of paper, each one having a brand, SQL-Server, > DB2, and Oracle, what will you pick for the enterprise? You will begin > to understand the post-informix world. After a careful review of these > three, DB2 scales better, embraces open-systems, works a lot like Informix, > and can MPP cluster "certified" up to 1000 servers sans XPS. Oracle has > only shown 8 cluster capability, 10G is still smokeware, and not nearly as > flexible in architecture as DB2. Take Informix out of your world and > you'll begin to understand. Dare I suggest that you're missing the point? You're arguing that, in many ways in which we Informix die-hards won't accept, DB2's functionality, scalability and ease of use is superior to that of Informix. We should infer from this justification for IBM's decision to allow Informix to die (from a marketing perspective). Whether you're right or not is irrelevant to this debate. We're telling you that the experience of our own eyes is that this message - right or not - is being ignored by Informix customers and that, as and when they leave Informix, they do not move to DB2 but to IBM's competitors. Thus we infer that IBM's decision to allow Informix to die (from a marketing perspective) is flawed. So the marketplace's answer to the question you pose above would be "Not DB2".

"Neil Truby" <neil.truby@ardenta.com> wrote in message news:c0dahr$15hnum$1@ID-162943.news.uni-berlin.de... > "Tim Schaefer" <tim@spamethnot.com> wrote in message > news:BDpWb.14560$Lg6.9727@fe17.usenetserver.com... > > > If I hand you three slips of paper, each one having a brand, SQL-Server, > > DB2, and Oracle, what will you pick for the enterprise? You will begin > > to understand the post-informix world. After a careful review of these > > three, DB2 scales better, embraces open-systems, works a lot like > Informix, > > and can MPP cluster "certified" up to 1000 servers sans XPS. Oracle has > > only shown 8 cluster capability, 10G is still smokeware, and not nearly as > > flexible in architecture as DB2. Take Informix out of your world and > > you'll begin to understand. > > Dare I suggest that you're missing the point? > Dare I suggest you should be in drama school? Dare I suggest a good Shakespear play to start with? :-) > You're arguing that, in many ways in which we Informix die-hards won't > accept, DB2's functionality, scalability and ease of use is superior to that > of Informix. We should infer from this justification for IBM's decision to > allow Informix to die (from a marketing perspective). > Ok...I simply read the market differently than you do. IBM should care about Informix customers because:________________ vs going after the larger market of Microsoft and Oracle customers. > Whether you're right or not is irrelevant to this debate. We're telling you > that the experience of our own eyes is that this message - right or not - is > being ignored by Informix customers and that, as and when they leave > Informix, they do not move to DB2 but to IBM's competitors. Thus we infer > that IBM's decision to allow Informix to die (from a marketing perspective) > is flawed. > OK, so how many verifiable Informix customers left for Oracle or other products? I would also question that many of these customers are solely on Informix. Very few projects I can ever remember ever were on just one engine. Moving to another product in many cases means really just expanding on one, and phasing the other out. So the "migration" may not be as simple as you suggest. > So the marketplace's answer to the question you pose above would be "Not > DB2". > I think some solid numbers regarding attrition would be good. You might be able to get the IIUG involved, they might have inroads to understanding the reality by the numbers. Some solid facts regarding this might provide a better foundation than inuendo and rumor. The larger the customer the more I'd tend to believe they were using all kinds of products, not just Informix. Tim

Tim Schaefer wrote: > If I hand you three slips of paper, each one having a brand, SQL-Server, > DB2, and Oracle, what will you pick for the enterprise? You will begin > to understand the post-informix world. After a careful review of these > three, DB2 scales better, embraces open-systems, works a lot like > Informix, > and can MPP cluster "certified" up to 1000 servers sans XPS. Oracle has > only shown 8 cluster capability, 10G is still smokeware, and not nearly as > flexible in architecture as DB2. Take Informix out of your world and > you'll begin to understand. I can only assume you haven't actually _used_ DB2 EEE yet? As you are an ex-XPS bigot, I can only imagine the crushing disappointment that awaits... :o) -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Tim Schaefer wrote: > I think some solid numbers regarding attrition would be good. You might be > able to get the IIUG involved, they might have inroads to understanding > the reality > by the numbers. Some solid facts regarding this might provide a better > foundation than inuendo and rumor. The larger the customer the more I'd > tend to believe they were using all kinds of products, not just Informix. Here is a number for you: 0. This is the exact number of people I have seen migrate from IDS to DB2 with my own eyes. Coincidentally, this is the exact number of verified rumours of clients that I know of, who have or intend to migrate from IDS to DB2. Every single client that I know if that _is_ migrating or thinking about it, is evaluating Oracle, SQL Server or (God help me) open source databases. How many of my clients or ex-clients are in this boat? Probably < 10% of the clients _I_ have worked on. But other people may be in different situations. I don't know everyone everywhere, but I do get around a bit (fnaar!) and I can't really see that Neil is putting about any innuendo. Fetching wife or not. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche