RE: IDS to DB2 conversion

I think this email sums up all of the problems in "merging" two products. We all use similar techniques but the jargon has evolved differently. And the old faithfuls of both products don't want to listen to the old faithfuls of the other product. In this case, as IBM are the bigger partner, the Informix old-faithfuls are scared they will have to learn a new language. But in reality how many people use the features that Serge and OTC are debating? And how many people even care any more? We all know that IBM will continue to support IDS while there are enough customers using it. We all know that IBM will make migration to DB2 a cost-effective option, either by raising Informix support charges or by reducing the number of platforms that Informix is ported to. We all know that this process is going to take years. While people are still deploying new releases and putting new apps onto them we can all see that it will be many years. So guys, I suggest you stop this ware of words through this mailing list, take your discussions offline, and come back to us when you can both agree to differ. Regards Malcolm -----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Obnoxio The Clown Sent: 04 February 2004 08:03 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: IDS to DB2 conversion Serge Rielau wrote: > Schema evolution is coming. That's wonderful. What does it mean, though? > DB2 Stinger will also bring an onstat like tool (no it won't be called > onstat of course) db2stat? > What is a virtual table interface? It is a mechanism that allows you to write an interface for _any_ data source and access it via IDS as though it was a table. A similar mechanism exists for creating indexes on such data sources. A bit like federation, except it allows you to access and index *any* data source, the sort of thing that could only go into a BLOB. > DB2 supports table functions and wrappers. Table functions are read-only > though. A nickname on a wrapper supports full DML. Once again, what does this mean? -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche sending to informix-list

Malcolm, I couldn't agree more that some of the feature differences are a simple academic discussion that has a questionable value. But maybe it's important for IBM to at least acknowledge in the __long_term__ the superior value that Informix engines have, to the bitter-enders. It might foster some good will that appears to be lacking. Or maybe people just haven't listened to any of the bread crumbs of good will that __have__ come their way. Either way, the market determines the fate of all of us. DB2 has a little more growing up to do for Informix people, but it'll eventually get there. Just in viewing that powerpoint slide presentation I started to get depressed that I can't use Informix, but will instead have to continue to choose amongst a market of sh**ty products, or products that eventually will be as good as Informix was years ago. Sour grapes though don't pay my bills. Thank god for Linux or would have probably shot myself years ago. :-) Having had to do without __all__ the Informix features now for the past three years, using Sybase and SQL-Server, and some small projects with MySQL, I don't get control over logs, no VTI, no MPP, horrible load times except for MySQL, sh***ty OS with Windows, and on and on. But the market has spoken, and the kids running the backups couldn't care less. The new watermark is to simply beat SQL-Server. Even Oracle is in trouble. It's a market that is literally starting over without Informix. Too bad Informix didn't get it when they had the chance, but really it doesn't matter anymore. If management doesn't know any better than the current "market leaders", just do what I do, grin and bear it. I have daily amazement that they actually paid money for what I work on, and are perfectly willing to live with what I consider substandard performance, with an environment from Microsoft that promotes low performance skill sets. But my paycheck continues to take care of me in an economy that may eventually shift all the tech to India, and my opportunities will once again have to shift to what the market demands, my own opinions being quite irrelevant. Who knows soon enough here in the US we'll all be flippin burgers, and it just won't matter anymore what the difference is between databases. :-) Tim "malcolm weallans" <malcolm.iiug@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:bvqd05$di2$1@terabinaries.xmission.com... > > I think this email sums up all of the problems in "merging" two > products. We all use similar techniques but the jargon has evolved > differently. And the old faithfuls of both products don't want to > listen to the old faithfuls of the other product. In this case, as IBM > are the bigger partner, the Informix old-faithfuls are scared they will > have to learn a new language. > > But in reality how many people use the features that Serge and OTC are > debating? And how many people even care any more? > We all know that IBM will continue to support IDS while there are enough > customers using it. > We all know that IBM will make migration to DB2 a cost-effective option, > either by raising Informix support charges or by reducing the number of > platforms that Informix is ported to. > We all know that this process is going to take years. While people are > still deploying new releases and putting new apps onto them we can all > see that it will be many years. > So guys, I suggest you stop this ware of words through this mailing > list, take your discussions offline, and come back to us when you can > both agree to differ. > > Regards > > Malcolm > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] > On Behalf Of Obnoxio The Clown > Sent: 04 February 2004 08:03 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: IDS to DB2 conversion > > > Serge Rielau wrote: > > > Schema evolution is coming. > > That's wonderful. What does it mean, though? > > > DB2 Stinger will also bring an onstat like tool (no it won't be called > > > onstat of course) > > db2stat? > > > What is a virtual table interface? > > It is a mechanism that allows you to write an interface for _any_ data > source and access it via IDS as though it was a table. A similar > mechanism > exists for creating indexes on such data sources. A bit like federation, > > except it allows you to access and index *any* data source, the sort of > thing that could only go into a BLOB. > > > DB2 supports table functions and wrappers. Table functions are > read-only > > though. A nickname on a wrapper supports full DML. > > Once again, what does this mean? > > -- > "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" > - Coluche > > > sending to informix-list

If that's the majority opinion I can certainly bow to it. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

malcolm weallans wrote: > So guys, I suggest you stop this ware of words through this mailing > list, take your discussions offline, and come back to us when you can > both agree to differ. OK, quick straw poll -- who here thinks this ware (sic) of words is irrelevant and uninteresting? Who here is uninterested in poking what information they can out of IBM on what might be happening and how IDS relates to DB2? -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche