Crying Wolf - was Re: Clarification please
Guys, I don't think it does any good for this newsgroup to be pessimistic when discussing the futures for Informix products. It merely serves to continue the doubts that many organisations have about the future of the products. I have recently spoken to a number of companies who are migrating away from Informix as they consider it to be dying. When I ask them why they cite lack of marketing and the uncertainty in this newgroup on the future. So, if we want the product to die then we should carry on telling the public that it will. By my reckoning Informix has a lifespan planned of about 5 years. And who can see further than that? 6 years ago we were all saying the 4GL was going to die - but then came D4GL and the product was reinvigorated. Just my tuppenceworth Malcolm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark D. Stock" <mdstock@mydassolutions.com> To: "Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler@earthlink.net> Cc: <informix-list@iiug.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:45 AM Subject: Re: Clarification please > Jonathan Leffler wrote: > > John Carlson wrote: > > > > > >>While perusing other newsgroups, I happened upon this interesting bit > >>of information . . . . > >> > >>------------------- > >>Robustness of pl/pgSQL, pl/PHP, pl/JAVA, pl/TCL, pl/PYTHON ? your > >>choice ! > >>PostgreSQL has triggers, SP,... > >> > >> > >> > >>>BTW, what platforms do postGre SQL and Informix port to? Isnt informix > >>>dead? IBM bought it and are shutting it down right? > >> > >> > >>yes, there will be 9.50 and 9.60 and then Informix ends. > >> > >>(sig not included) > >>-------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >>This individual also mentioned something along the same lines in c.d.i > >>a while back as well. Since I haven't heard anything official from > >>IBM, I'm guessing that this is just a bit of FUD. Can anyone clarify > >>this information? > > > > > > FUD. 9.60 detailed planning is just about to start. 9.70 follows; > > that which doesn't make it into those will be considered for 9.80. > > ... and THEN it's dead..., right?! :^) > > Cheers, > -- > Mark. > > +----------------------------------------------------------+-----------+ > | Mark D. Stock mailto:mdstock@MydasSolutions.com |//////// /| > | Mydas Solutions Ltd http://MydasSolutions.com |///// / //| > | +-----------------------------------+//// / ///| > | |We value your comments, which have |/// / ////| > | |been recorded and automatically |// / /////| > | |emailed back to us for our records.|/ ////////| > +----------------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+ > > sending to informix-list sending to informix-list
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:47:41 +0100, "malcolm.iiug" <malcolm.iiug@btopenworld.com> wrote: > >Guys, >I don't think it does any good for this newsgroup to be pessimistic when >discussing the futures for Informix products. It merely serves to continue >the doubts that many organisations have about the future of the products. I >have recently spoken to a number of companies who are migrating away from >Informix as they consider it to be dying. When I ask them why they cite >lack of marketing and the uncertainty in this newgroup on the future. So, >if we want the product to die then we should carry on telling the public >that it will. By my reckoning Informix has a lifespan planned of about 5 >years. And who can see further than that? 6 years ago we were all saying >the 4GL was going to die - but then came D4GL and the product was >reinvigorated. > >Just my tuppenceworth > >Malcolm > I agree . . . hence my original post. I saw what was apparently inaccurate information, and I wanted someone to provide accurate information. That someone (who shall go nameless) did so, very clearly. Lack of marketing is still an issue with me, but it's outside my scope, so to speak. Then again, I remember Serge's comment concerning marketing for DB2 . . . .8-) Lack of marketing is one thing that we as techies are not really able to control, as corporate decisions are made at a higher level than we are. Just remember, if there's doubt concerning the future of the products, whose responsibility is it? 4GL dying 6 years ago? Glad it didn't, as we use it quite a bit here . . . . didn't hear that one . . . . now we get to hear about EGL . . My US$0.02.
"malcolm.iiug" <malcolm.iiug@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:bhvok2$7oq$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > > Guys, > I don't think it does any good for this newsgroup to be pessimistic when > discussing the futures for Informix products. It merely serves to continue > the doubts that many organisations have about the future of the products. I > have recently spoken to a number of companies who are migrating away from > Informix as they consider it to be dying. When I ask them why they cite > lack of marketing and the uncertainty in this newgroup on the future. So, > if we want the product to die then we should carry on telling the public > that it will. Bollocks! Is it the fault of the newsgroup contributors that Informix is viewed as yesterday's product? No. It's a result of the aforementioned lack of marketing, and the impression that this about how much IBM really cares for Informix. rkusenet made the point about the recent report from Gartner entitled "Informix: The Twilight Years". Barely a peep has been uttered by IBM in the form of a rebuttal. Does anyone really believe that IBM would have let that passed unchallenged had it been entitled "DB2 UDB: The Twilight Years"? Why should we lie about it?
malcolm.iiug wrote: > I don't think it does any good for this newsgroup to be pessimistic when > discussing the futures for Informix products. It merely serves to Errrr,...Malcolm? I think that was a joke. It had a smiley and everything. > continue > the doubts that many organisations have about the future of the products. > I have recently spoken to a number of companies who are migrating away > from > Informix as they consider it to be dying. When I ask them why they cite > lack of marketing and the uncertainty in this newgroup on the future. So, > if we want the product to die then we should carry on telling the public > that it will. By my reckoning Informix has a lifespan planned of about 5 > years. And who can see further than that? 6 years ago we were all saying > the 4GL was going to die - but then came D4GL and the product was > reinvigorated. > > Just my tuppenceworth > > Malcolm > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark D. Stock" <mdstock@mydassolutions.com> > To: "Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler@earthlink.net> > Cc: <informix-list@iiug.org> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 9:45 AM > Subject: Re: Clarification please > > >> Jonathan Leffler wrote: >> > John Carlson wrote: >> > >> > >> >>While perusing other newsgroups, I happened upon this interesting bit >> >>of information . . . . >> >> >> >>------------------- >> >>Robustness of pl/pgSQL, pl/PHP, pl/JAVA, pl/TCL, pl/PYTHON ? your >> >>choice ! >> >>PostgreSQL has triggers, SP,... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>BTW, what platforms do postGre SQL and Informix port to? Isnt informix >> >>>dead? IBM bought it and are shutting it down right? >> >> >> >> >> >>yes, there will be 9.50 and 9.60 and then Informix ends. >> >> >> >>(sig not included) >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>This individual also mentioned something along the same lines in c.d.i >> >>a while back as well. Since I haven't heard anything official from >> >>IBM, I'm guessing that this is just a bit of FUD. Can anyone clarify >> >>this information? >> > >> > >> > FUD. 9.60 detailed planning is just about to start. 9.70 follows; >> > that which doesn't make it into those will be considered for 9.80. >> >> ... and THEN it's dead..., right?! :^)