Re: IBM releases #1 TPC-E benchmark!

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Jul 13, 1:41 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But then we have the TPC-E "promised" benchmarks. Promised by who? > Where are they? Maybe in the imagination of people who know they were promised? > I'm sorry if you think that I'm trying to create some conspiracy > theory. I'm not. I just think you already received the liquor... > I'm sure Alyse is wondering who I know and what I know. ;-) I'd bet she has a lot more on her mind, but that's not for me to judge. > So what happened to the TPC-E benchmark? Yeah... Ever considered asking that to who promised it?

On Jul 14, 4:32 pm, Fernando Nunes <domusonl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: [SNIP] > > Yeah... Ever considered asking that to who promised it? Fernando, I'm afraid that you're a little too late in attempting to obfuscate the question by denial. Those who said it, know they said it. Those that heard it, know they heard it. The where and the when aren't important. I was present for one of those conversations. Please don't embarrass yourself because you weren't there. There are a lot of IBM/Infomrix alumns out there. Each one in a slightly different part of IM. Each one can hear a slightly different story or part of a story. Talk to enough people, you get rumors confirmed and a better understanding of the picture. There's lots of rumors out there. Some true, some partially true, and some false but sound too good to be true. The damage is done and nothing appears to be done to correct it. We talk about a lack of parity. There's one heritage IBMer who constantly stuck his foot in his mouth when talking about IDS to the press. There's another who is in the position to actually correct these deficiencies, yet hasn't. Either they have bigger issues, or they are focusing on DB2 because its LUW numbers are short. No time to focus on a product that is working in the SMB/Whitespace market. Like I said in an earlier post. If IBM thinks that IDS should sell X licenses in a year, and you're constantly selling 120% of X, they are fat dumb and happy. Of course, the market could support a target of 3X. So should you still be fat dumb and happy because you're consistently selling 120% year over year? (Yeah the number is just an example. But you get the idea). So yeah. There's a lack of parity. Its not being addressed. One has to ask why. No? But hey! What do I know? ;-) (Definitely more than I can say even though my non-competes ran out. I'd have to see if I still have any existing NDAs with IBM too. ;-) -G