Re: Well he started it!!! wuz Re: IDS on a Mac?
Not a technical help thread — it's the tail end of an off-topic flamewar spun off from a question about running IDS on a Mac. The argument is over whether IBM could or should break out separate revenue figures for Informix IDS versus DB2 in its quarterly reports; Serge Rielau and others argue such detail is impractical and meaningless to analysts, while DA Morgan insists IBM clearly has the numbers and simply chooses not to publish. Side jabs cover Oracle-compatibility work (VARCHAR2) in DB2 and whether DB2 talk belongs in the Informix group, plus jokes about cube roots of minus one. No technical problem is posed and no resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Serge Rielau wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Does Oracle break out its numbers? > One number for "Database and Middleware". > Think IM + Websphere... > > To answer to Daniel. I said "impractical at a quarterly report". > Neither SEC nor Analysts care for this DB2 vs. IDS nonsense. > Of course the number are known. > > But IBM, IMHO, is neither obligated nor motivated to disclose to a > raging flamewar in usenet. > > Cheers > Serge Impractical at a quarterly level? Give me a break. IBM is not some technology backwater. You know perfectly well that they could give you those numbers on a daily basis, hourly basis, weekly, monthly, heck they could give them to you multiplied by the cube root of minus one if you asked. Of course no one is being obligated and thus no one does it. But it has nothing to do with practicality. It has to do with an internally defined definition of corporate self-interest. Personally I don't care as from where I sit your sales numbers are totally irrelevant. The only metric I care about is jobs available that pay a decent wage. Sell a zillion licenses and if not one job is created for developers and DBAs no one benefits except your employees and stockholders. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
DA Morgan said: > IBM is not some > technology backwater. That's what YOU think. :o) -- Bye now, Obnoxio "I'm astonished anyone pays real money for this crap." -- Cosmo "Cluster in my trousers" -- Guy Bowerman -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.
Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > DA Morgan said: >> IBM is not some >> technology backwater. > > That's what YOU think. :o) Trying to be nice ... trying to be charitable ... but perhaps you are correct. Serge check this out: http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/integration/bam/index.html Want me to install it for you? <g> -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington
DA Morgan wrote: > Serge check this out: > http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/integration/bam/index.html > > Want me to install it for you? <g> Only if it runs on IDS or DB2. -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Serge check this out: >> http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/integration/bam/index.html >> >> Want me to install it for you? <g> > Only if it runs on IDS or DB2. How are those compatibility features coming along? <g> -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
>From: DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> > >Impractical at a quarterly level? Give me a break. IBM is not some >technology backwater. You know perfectly well that they could give >you those numbers on a daily basis, hourly basis, weekly, monthly, >heck they could give them to you multiplied by the cube root of minus >one if you asked. IBM a not a technology backwater? Hmmm. Maybe not as much as CA is.... ;-) But with respect to Serge's comment, it would be impractical to break this level of detail out for analysts. Sure IBM has these numbers. There's an army on its payroll to make spreadsheets and update them on a weekly basis for these numbers. (And this is true of Oracle too.) The issue is that for the public and analysts, these numbers are really meaningless as a representation of the health of a company. -G _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share anywhere with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_connectshare_112007
DA Morgan wrote: [snip] > > Impractical at a quarterly level? Give me a break. IBM is not some > technology backwater. You know perfectly well that they could give > you those numbers on a daily basis, hourly basis, weekly, monthly, > heck they could give them to you multiplied by the cube root of minus > one if you asked. [snip] While Oracle's are most certainly multiplied by the square root of minus one. Sorry - couldn't resist -- Ciao, Marco ______________________________________________________________________________ Marco Greco /UK /IBM Standard disclaimers apply! Structured Query Scripting Language http://www.4glworks.com/sqsl.htm 4glworks http://www.4glworks.com Informix on Linux http://www.4glworks.com/ifmxlinux.htm
DA Morgan wrote: > How are those compatibility features coming along? <g> VARCHAR2 is a b****. Have you tried them? But we should discuss these in c.d.ibm-db2, not here.... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Marco Greco wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: > [snip] >> Impractical at a quarterly level? Give me a break. IBM is not some >> technology backwater. You know perfectly well that they could give >> you those numbers on a daily basis, hourly basis, weekly, monthly, >> heck they could give them to you multiplied by the cube root of minus >> one if you asked. > [snip] > > While Oracle's are most certainly multiplied by the square root of minus one. > Sorry - couldn't resist Ah, irrational numbers . . . . or was that imaginary . . .8-) JWC
Serge Rielau wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> How are those compatibility features coming along? <g> > VARCHAR2 is a b****. Have you tried them? > But we should discuss these in c.d.ibm-db2, not here.... > Cheers > Serge > Why - doesn't IBM think people should/would migrate from Oracle to IDS as well as DB2 ?
Mark Townsend wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: >> DA Morgan wrote: >>> How are those compatibility features coming along? <g> >> VARCHAR2 is a b****. Have you tried them? >> But we should discuss these in c.d.ibm-db2, not here.... >> Cheers >> Serge >> > > Why - doesn't IBM think people should/would migrate from Oracle to IDS > as well as DB2 ? Au contraire. They should and they do. But Daniel wants to discuss DB2 stuff and this is the Informix forum lat I checked. We're all mere guests here.... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab
Serge Rielau wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: >> Serge Rielau wrote: >>> DA Morgan wrote: >>>> How are those compatibility features coming along? <g> >>> VARCHAR2 is a b****. Have you tried them? >>> But we should discuss these in c.d.ibm-db2, not here.... >>> Cheers >>> Serge >>> >> >> Why - doesn't IBM think people should/would migrate from Oracle to IDS >> as well as DB2 ? > Au contraire. They should and they do. But Daniel wants to discuss DB2 > stuff and this is the Informix forum lat I checked. We're all mere > guests here.... > > Cheers > Serge > Some more welcome that others :-) -- Paul Watson Tel: +1 913-400-2620 Mob: +1 913-387-7529 Web: www.oninit.com Failure is not as frightening as regret. If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.
On Nov 8, 9:44 pm, John Carlson <jwcarls...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Marco Greco wrote: > > DA Morgan wrote: > > [snip] > >> Impractical at a quarterly level? Give me a break. IBM is not some > >> technology backwater. You know perfectly well that they could give > >> you those numbers on a daily basis, hourly basis, weekly, monthly, > >> heck they could give them to you multiplied by the cube root of minus > >> one if you asked. > > [snip] > > > While Oracle's are most certainly multiplied by the square root of minus one. > > Sorry - couldn't resist > > Ah, irrational numbers . . . . or was that imaginary . . .8-) Both, irrational, imaginary and rational in this case since it has 3 roots. > > JWC Which cubed root of -1 do you think they would use the obvious -1 or the complex conjugate pair of (1 + i*sqrt(3))/2 or (1 - i*sqrt(3))/2. I kind of hope for the complex conjugate pair. Hey, If you are going to mention cubed roots in your comments then I am going to post. ;-) DA, I don't think you needed to post in this case because the Oracle mention was a passing comment about Oracle being ported to Mac OS X at one point. I think you wanted to post because you have some old axes to grind. Did Informix promise you a pony for your 5th birthday and then not deliver? I think if you don't use Informix then you don't really need to troll this group. Otherwise I am going to think that you just want to grind. I did have fun reading some of the posts but I got entirely sucked and wasted about an hour total.
Serge Rielau wrote: > Mark Townsend wrote: >> Serge Rielau wrote: >>> DA Morgan wrote: >>>> How are those compatibility features coming along? <g> >>> VARCHAR2 is a b****. Have you tried them? >>> But we should discuss these in c.d.ibm-db2, not here.... >>> Cheers >>> Serge >>> >> >> Why - doesn't IBM think people should/would migrate from Oracle to IDS >> as well as DB2 ? > Au contraire. They should and they do. But Daniel wants to discuss DB2 > stuff and this is the Informix forum lat I checked. We're all mere > guests here.... > > Cheers > Serge Lets see how that jives with history: Here are excerpts from your posts in recent days to this very thread: 10/27/2007 "and DB2, and SQL Server's" 10/27/2007 "whether it's defined the IDS or DB2 way doesn't matter" 11/07/2007 "DB2 distributed revenue numbers." 11/07/2007 "I have no trouble believing that IDS outnumbers DB2 for LUW in installations." 11/08/2007 "Neither SEC nor Analysts care for this DB2 vs. IDS nonsense." 11/08/2007 "Only if it runs on IDS or DB2." I only found two posts in which you didn't bring up DB2. Pot = Kettle = Black eh. It is not that "Daniel wants to discuss DB2 stuff" but rather that "Daniel" thinks IBM should build those compatibility features into Informix too so that Informix can be deployed under all of those applications from which it seems it is being intentionally orphaned. In fact one a reasonable person might wonder why someone involved in "DB2 Solutions Development" is here but someone from IDS Solutions Development is not. Don't you allow them out in public any more? <g> Come on out to OpenWorld. With more than 45,000 people there no one will notice your blue suit. <g> -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington