Re: IIUG - Linux and Informix

In article <yosemiteE9nCD6.MAF@netcom.com>, Alan Denney <yosemite@netcom.com> writes >In article <5kd646$646$1@news.xmission.com>, >DBA Resources <dbaresrc@xmission.xmission.com> wrote: >>The issues surrounding the technical viability of a Linux port can be raised >>**politely** during the Ask The Experts session the IIUG is sponsoring during >>the 1997 Informix Worldwide User Conference. With Tim Shetler, VP of Product >>Development and Don Top, Director of OnLine Kernel Development available to >>respond, you should be able to get a better perspective of the issues from >>Informix's point of view. I'd love to talk to them - especially the Director of Online Kernel Development but I'm in England...when will he be coming over???.... What about a UK conference? >> >>Carlton Doe > >Without speaking for anybody else... it seems to me that the key areas >of Informix involved in such a decision would be a) the group that selects >are prioritizes ports, generally based on commitments with hardware >vendors and on business cases (e.g. those who have "shown the money"), >and b) Platform Engineering (who would actually be doing the work). > >I don't even know who's in charge of "group a" above, nor what its >title is anymore, but I doubt that it's under Tim or Don's realm, and >Platform Engineering isn't either. Therefore, while taking up the subject >of Linux issues with them is a good starting point, please don't get angry >with them if you find them unable to make specific commitments or give >much detail on the Linux issue, as it isn't really their area. Try EVERYONE TAKE NOTE - REMEMBER a) INFORMIX IS ON OUR SIDE b) Tim/Don are not the whole of Informix and so not responsible for everything that Informix do. >to acknowledge that fact going in, and rather than beat on them for specific >answers, get them to have the responsible parties in "group a" and >Platform Engineering follow up to the Linux audience in some manner >after the conference. (Perhaps an interested party could fire up an >Informix-on-Linux-SIG listserv.) > >Also, keep in mind that supporting a platform for ANY length of time >creates a longish-term commitment to supporting a product line. Also, I believe the idea is that we'd support it - just let us port it... >since in this case you don't have a software vendor to work with >(or, ahem, go after) when you run into operating system or compiler >problems, you add risk to the project. The Linux faithful certainly >think that Linux has a lot of productive years ahead of it (as do I). >However, history has shown that "free" O/Ses can be abandoned as >quickly as they are adopted (I don't read much about 386BSD anymore, >for example). > >People here seem to be made most angry by the lack of Linux support >to date because they view the technical/porting issues as solvable. Correct, we can do it and get frustrated because so far we have not be allowed to do it... >(Heck, I ported the servers and tools on *Consensys UNIX* once upon a time.) >The *problem* is, the technical issues are the LEAST important factor >(generally) in choosing to support a new platform/environment. The >disparity in available versions/options/patches of Linux actually >*complicates* matters rather than simplifies them. > >Disclaimer: I speak only for myself and the voices in my head, not >for Informix in general nor Platform Engineering in particular. > > >-- >Alan Denney aland@informix.com yosemite@netcom.com >Informix Platform Engineering > >"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the > people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent > and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison > -- David Williams