Re: IIUG Board election results

I love to take mySQL on with IDS... often can be an easy sell when you start asking the right questions, like... what's the cost of a downed server? sure, most application servers know how to deal with a server that goes down and lets say 100 users get a timeout when this happens. how much business is lost when a user just says... oh screw it, if the site won't give me what I want I will go else where. Or... mySQL is used as a cache to some industrial str backend like the big O. What's the time lag between the replication of the backend to mySQL? Ever go thru all the steps of a reservation or buying a product and you get an oops, out of inventory email a few minutes later? that pisses people off so they don't go back. Ever seen the real cost of supporting mySQL? Unless you go cheap labor in your own house, your screwed! Not that IDS IDS is great reliability. IDS has great replication capability. It runs on everything from 32Mb embedded product to 10's TB and 100's Gb memory. Its versatile and flexible and easy to use. Is it perfect? Nope, lots of warts! The problem with IBM is that it doesn't push the developer's and application providers enough to get them to use IDS. Make it free for development. Make it lucrative for the application providers to use and sell it. Not sure IBM knows how to spell SMB! On Feb 18, 3:59 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: ind...@indeep.com > > > Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results > > > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:37:53 -0800 > > > To: informix-l...@iiug.org > > > > slickwillie...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Ah...more great wisdom from someone with the spelling skills of "less > > > > than a 5th grader" (ala the most recent silly TV show). > > > > > finacial - that would be "financial." > > > > catagories - that would be "categories." > > > > > A nice Monday morning chuckle - someone expunding (sic) > > > > authoritatively about a company as complex and complicated as IBM, but > > > > wouldn't pass his SAT's for spelling/grammar. > > > > > Keep 'em coming! > > > > Slickster.... > > > > It's really more about using a spell-checker ( hiccup ) than anything. > > > Wait till he ( hiccup ) misspells "definitely". > > > Well, its kind of funny that the only quip "sick willie" can make is one > > about spelling. > > Usually the one who can't hold their own in the discussion tends to look > > towards flaws in presentation not substance. ;-) > > > > But back on what Gumby said... It would be interesting to know what the > > > real plans are for Informix. IBM could be using the Microsoft playbook > > > to Embrace->Extend->Extinguish Informix, all the while giving the public > > > impression that they want to sell product. As long as the niche base is > > > happy they can dribble it out to the market, but in the long run have the > > > idea to really get rid of it. Instead they should consider something like > > > what EMC is doing with VMWare... > > > When Informix was purchased by IBM, Janet and IBM made certain > > statements to the effect that they would continue to support IDS and its > > customers. So on one hand, Janet had a legal obligation to support > > Informix while on the other hand she wanted to kill it. And she did > > some very subtle things that hurt Informix. (And some not so subtle) > > Now that Janet is gone, one has to ask about her minions who are still > > hanging around. (Which leads back to my statement that the current > > leaders of IM are there just to get their tickets punched.) > > > When you consider that on distributed platforms (Thats > > Windows/Linux/Unix to the rest of the world), IDS is outselling DB2, IBM > > has a compelling argument to keep it around. U2/Universe has been a > > cash cow even though Dick Pick is dead. > > > I read that white paper that IBM bought and is on Paul's site. > > IBM's now stated position is that IDS is their OLTP engine and DB2 is > > their DW engine. That could work however, I have to question how > > committed IBM is to IDS. No offense, but SAP hasn't re-established a > > port and what about ATG, Lawson and other defections? > > > In addition, IBM hasn't shifted their market position to reflect changes > > in the market place. > > IBM needs something like SAP in order to compete with Oracle. And of > > course here's another intersting thought. "Why purchase RAD (Rational > > Application Developer) when I can get the functionality that I need from > > Eclipse for free?" But thats a SWG level question that Steve Mills needs > > to address. ;-) > > > But hey! What do I know? I'm just too damn lazy to use a spell chicker. :-P > > > -G > > >http://www.news.com/EMC-to-push-VMware-public,-but-still-keep-control... > > There is also a certain amount of misunderstanding being pushed out, > such as calling Informix "embedded". Is this term being morphed into > something other than what it would normally mean? Embedded typically > refers to things like hardware, such as controllers, and other firmware. > > When did 'embedded' mean something like Informix? I know there is an > embedded perl, embedded MySQL, but these are intended towards use in > firmware ( hardware ) . I have yet to see an Enterprise OLTP or DSS > engine from another company called 'embedded'. This is what I'd call > a gross misrepresentation of the product. I can see C-ISAM being called > 'embedded' but IDS? This is really going in the wrong direction. > > Maybe slickwillie can point his frustration at IBM, and ask why they > are doing some of the stupid things they are doing with Informix. MySQL > is the predominant brand in the dot-com space, and if you think the dot-bomb > is over, you should stop bywww.socaltech.com, and see what the LA scene is > up to these days. Lots and lots of MySQL, not a lot of Informix. > > By the way, being close to IBM is not necessarily a good thing, nor should > it really matter. If the customer base would get up off its ass and demand > more of IBM things might change. Until then this and other discussions are > purely academic. I'm less than 6 deg from Sam P, and it doesn't really > matter, we don't talk and he wouldn't listen to me anyway. ;-) > > -ID-

On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 17:46 -0800, pokeyman wrote: > The problem with IBM is that it doesn't push the developer's and > application providers enough to get them to use IDS. Make it free for > development. I take it you haven't heard of the free developer edition of IDS11? -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net

pokeyman wrote: > I love to take mySQL on with IDS... often can be an easy sell when you > start asking the right questions, like... > what's the cost of a downed server? sure, most application servers > know how to deal with a server that goes down and lets say 100 users > get a timeout when this happens. how much business is lost when a user > just says... oh screw it, if the site won't give me what I want I will > go else where. > > Or... mySQL is used as a cache to some industrial str backend like the > big O. What's the time lag between the replication of the backend to > mySQL? Ever go thru all the steps of a reservation or buying a product > and you get an oops, out of inventory email a few minutes later? that > pisses people off so they don't go back. > > Ever seen the real cost of supporting mySQL? Unless you go cheap labor > in your own house, your screwed! Not that IDS > > IDS is great reliability. IDS has great replication capability. It > runs on everything from 32Mb embedded product to 10's TB and 100's Gb > memory. Its versatile and flexible and easy to use. Is it perfect? > Nope, lots of warts! > > The problem with IBM is that it doesn't push the developer's and > application providers enough to get them to use IDS. Make it free for > development. Make it lucrative for the application providers to use > and sell it. Not sure IBM knows how to spell SMB! > > Amen. IBM, like the old Informix, has no sense of urgency in the market. Unfortunately, IBM will never have a sense of urgency about anything, and this will allow them to miss opportunity after opportunity... MySQL is pure shyte for big data, or even reasonably sized databases, but you can't tell that market anything till they finally hit the wall, and then go for something else, typically anything other than Informix. -ID-

> > IBM, like the old Informix, has no sense of urgency in the market. > > Unfortunately, IBM will never have a sense of urgency about anything, > and this will allow them to miss opportunity after opportunity... > Yawn - wonder what is on the other channel ?

Mark Townsend wrote: > > >> >> IBM, like the old Informix, has no sense of urgency in the market. >> >> Unfortunately, IBM will never have a sense of urgency about anything, >> and this will allow them to miss opportunity after opportunity... >> > > > Yawn - wonder what is on the other channel ? Sorry no buffet dinner here, just some left over cheese and crackers, and the bar just closed 20 minutes ago.

> From: pokeyman76@gmail.com > IDS is great reliability. IDS has great replication capability. It > runs on everything from 32Mb embedded product to 10's TB and 100's Gb > memory. Its versatile and flexible and easy to use. Is it perfect? > Nope, lots of warts! > I don't know. Not warts. Maybe say its like a great sports car, but just has some nicks and dings on the surface? > The problem with IBM is that it doesn't push the developer's and > application providers enough to get them to use IDS. Make it free for > development. Make it lucrative for the application providers to use > and sell it. Not sure IBM knows how to spell SMB! > Here's the rub. IDS is good. Real good. So if you give it away for free for "development", you're going to have customers that will abuse this. And I'm not talking about mom and pop shops. (Some here can guess which accounts.) IBM does offer that "all you can eat" developers deal for all of SWG's products, which is reasonable if you're going to use more than one of IBM's products in development. And then there's the IIUG. You can get a handicapped version that works well enough for developers, but is missing some of its bells and whistles. Or the Mac version. Which is an interesting thing by itself. IBM does know how to spell SMB. But what they don't know how to do is to sell in that market space. As several ex-IBM S&D put it... "IBM is a bunch of farmers, they don't know how to hunt". This is why Informix's success in the SMB can be attributed to partners and channel sales. _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

On Feb 20, 2:18 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: pokeyma...@gmail.com > > IDS is great reliability. IDS has great replication capability. It > > runs on everything from 32Mb embedded product to 10's TB and 100's Gb > > memory. Its versatile and flexible and easy to use. Is it perfect? > > Nope, lots of warts! > > I don't know. Not warts. Maybe say its like a great sports car, but just has some nicks and dings on the surface? > > > The problem with IBM is that it doesn't push the developer's and > > application providers enough to get them to use IDS. Make it free for > > development. Make it lucrative for the application providers to use > > and sell it. Not sure IBM knows how to spell SMB! > > Here's the rub. IDS is good. Real good. So if you give it away for free for "development", you're going to have customers that will abuse this. And I'm not talking about mom and pop shops. (Some here can guess which accounts.)  IBM does offer that "all you can eat" developers deal for all of SWG's products, which is reasonable if you're going to use more than one of IBM's products in development. And then there's the IIUG. You can get a handicapped version that works well enough for developers, but is missing some of its bells and whistles. Or the Mac version. Which is an interesting thing by itself. > > IBM does know how to spell SMB. But what they don't know how to do is to sell in that market space. As several ex-IBM S&D put it... "IBM is a bunch of farmers, they don't know how to hunt". > This is why Informix's success in the SMB can be attributed to partners and channel sales. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_... When did I say that "embedded and integrated" were the same? No statement was made about that at all by me. Another Gumby delusion here. Engineering school. When did we start comparing degrees? Never. Gumby's degree certainly wasn't in English! How many embedded systems have I worked on? I really don't know - since you are the only one who knows the true definition of embedded, I have no idea. (Sounds like something "embedded in your head" would help this newsgroup, but what do I know?!) OK - I'm jumping the bandwagon too....the movement to "ignore Gumby's posts (as one so eloquently put it) because they're 'shite'." Oh - and the post that said "your posts are better drunk..." - can't believe Gum-heads' still out there swinging away. It IS amusing though! I mean - he tries, and tries, and tries to convince the readers of his intelligence, knowledge, and industry savvy. One must be certain that the echo he hears is very loud...dig a hole deep enough, and you're talking to yourself starts to echo....(that made ME laugh!). export IGNORE_GUMBY=ON # I can explain this Gumby if you need. Oh - and I'm not sure who "Mark" is (although I have an idea whom you refer to), but I doubt he wants you throwing his name about on a post from someone else. Slickster...not Mark...and could never be (nor would want to be) Gumby...

> From: slickwillie999@gmail.com Mark, I guess you're too focused on sounding out those big words that you lost focus on the thread. The thread dealt with indeep saying that he wished that they would stop using embedded and switch to integrated. But I guess that's beyond your ability Mark. Apparently you've still got some anger issues that need to be resolved. _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

I never used the word 'integrated'. I simply wish IBM would sell off Informix or do something similar to what EMC is doing with VMWare, so it can compete without having IBM holding it back, always in the shadow of stupid IBM people who don't want IDS to succeed. If you're going to market Informix, at least represent it correctly. It's not embedded or integrated. Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: slickwillie999@gmail.com > > Mark, > > I guess you're too focused on sounding out those big words that you lost > focus on the thread. > > The thread dealt with indeep saying that he wished that they would stop > using embedded and switch to integrated. > > > But I guess that's beyond your ability Mark. Apparently you've still > got some anger issues that need to be resolved. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now! > <http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008>;

"InDeep" <indeep@indeep.com> wrote in message news:APLuj.58$WB.23@fe36.usenetserver.com... >> Not sure IBM knows how to spell SMB! They don't need to now. On Valentine's Day I received an "IBM Business Partner Newsflash". It begins: "As we go into 2008, IBM has assessed where the major opportunities in our market exist. The potential from small and medium enterprises (now called General Business at IBM) ..."

The problem is that IBM doesn't "market" individual products. They market the "brand" or pillar. There's a lot of issues within SWG. But that's at Steve Mills level. Within IM, your best marketers are the vendors/vars and the IIUG. (Meaning the entire user group community.) If IBM does anything, it will be to split the divisions in to separate companies under a holding company. You really can't sell off Informix because even though DB2 and IDS will never get joined under an "arrow head" project, they do share technology. So if you sell off IDS, how do you handle the IP? Its not an easy thing and you're complicating licensing issues for certain large customers who use IDS and other IBM software products. > From: indeep@indeep.com> Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:09:09 -0800> To: informix-list@iiug.org> > I never used the word 'integrated'.> > I simply wish IBM would sell off Informix or do something similar to what> EMC is doing with VMWare, so it can compete without having IBM holding it> back, always in the shadow of stupid IBM people who don't want IDS to succeed.> > If you're going to market Informix, at least represent it correctly. It's> not embedded or integrated.> > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote:> > > > > > > From: slickwillie999@gmail.com> > > > Mark,> > > > I guess you're too focused on sounding out those big words that you lost > > focus on the thread.> > > > The thread dealt with indeep saying that he wished that they would stop > > using embedded and switch to integrated.> > > > > > But I guess that's beyond your ability Mark. Apparently you've still > > got some anger issues that need to be resolved.> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now! > > <http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008>>; > _______________________________________________> Informix-list mailing list> Informix-list@iiug.org> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > The problem is that IBM doesn't "market" individual products. They > market the "brand" or pillar. There's a lot of issues within SWG. But > that's at Steve Mills level. Within IM, your best marketers are the > vendors/vars and the IIUG. (Meaning the entire user group community.) > Bullshit. IBM can do anything it wants to, there's no lock in on anything. The IIUG is helpful, but it's not the only game in town. > If IBM does anything, it will be to split the divisions in to separate > companies under a holding company. You really can't sell off Informix > because even though DB2 and IDS will never get joined under an "arrow > head" project, they do share technology. So if you sell off IDS, how do > you handle the IP? Its not an easy thing and you're complicating > licensing issues for certain large customers who use IDS and other IBM > software products. > Even the most casual observer can't help but notice what a nothing effort has gone into marketing Informix. It's kind of like everybody but IBM sees how fucking idiotic IBM is for not even trying to do the right things. The IIUG remains a positive stopgap for a complete non-effort from IBM to market and develop the Informix market. It's like you have to talk yourself into believing IBM is going to actually do something with Informix. Instead you wonder YEAR AFTER FUCKING YEAR WTF IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH INFORMIX. Lots of wasted, lost opportunities... just too fucked up to imagine anyone but the IDS developer team is actually even aware of the software at IBM. > > > > > From: indeep@indeep.com > > Subject: Re: IIUG Board election results > > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:09:09 -0800 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > I never used the word 'integrated'. > > > > I simply wish IBM would sell off Informix or do something similar to what > > EMC is doing with VMWare, so it can compete without having IBM holding it > > back, always in the shadow of stupid IBM people who don't want IDS to > succeed. > > > > If you're going to market Informix, at least represent it correctly. It's > > not embedded or integrated. > > > > > > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: slickwillie999@gmail.com > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > I guess you're too focused on sounding out those big words that you > lost > > > focus on the thread. > > > > > > The thread dealt with indeep saying that he wished that they would > stop > > > using embedded and switch to integrated. > > > > > > > > > But I guess that's beyond your ability Mark. Apparently you've still > > > got some anger issues that need to be resolved. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now! > > > > <http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008>; > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Informix-list mailing list > > Informix-list@iiug.org > > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we > give. Learn more. > <http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join>;

InDeep said: > Lots of wasted, lost opportunities... just too fucked up to imagine anyone > but the IDS developer team is actually even aware of the software at IBM. I suspect that in years to come, comp.reportwriters.cognos will host a similar comment as well. It's going to be interesting if they stick to the line that "we do not advertise individual products" for Cognos, and that leads to a massive decline in sales. Hopefully that will hurt someone, somewhere enough to make a policy change. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the Labour Party. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent." -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

Informix-On-Linux turns 10 years old in June or July 2008. In 1998 "Informix: The Database With The Future Built In" couldn't be more prophetic. Back then it suffered from a lack of marketing as much as today! In the future there will be no marketing for Informix! It's built-in! Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > InDeep said: >> Lots of wasted, lost opportunities... just too fucked up to imagine anyone >> but the IDS developer team is actually even aware of the software at IBM. > > I suspect that in years to come, comp.reportwriters.cognos will host a > similar comment as well. It's going to be interesting if they stick to the > line that "we do not advertise individual products" for Cognos, and that > leads to a massive decline in sales. Hopefully that will hurt someone, > somewhere enough to make a policy change. >