Re: Looks Like The Party Is Over In Menlo (2nd try)

[I've edited this to take out the rude words, which is what I'm *hoping* is causing the post to not go out. ]-: Aahhh...it was Timmy....I thought it might have been Mikey when I heard it contained strong language... :-) From: Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@bellsouth.net> >Sorry to see things go the way they did Bob Finocchio. Is that irony? I can't tell from here. >Too bad you had your head up your a$$ so far for so long >to do so little for so many in the Informix world. Timmy, baby, you need to get back onto decaf... >You had plenty of warnings, advice, suggestions, proddings, >ideas, helpers, enablers, and good people ready, willing >and able to turn things around. Instead, you fscked it >up, and now a cleanup crew will be coming in, taking your >asses to Massachusettes. It's hard to believe that things Massachusetts. >went the way they did, but all the writing was on the wall. You seem to be implying that someone didn't do something? >I hope you are fired soon Bob and the end of Informix as we >know it will have your departure as the finishing touch. You >can't possibly be dumb enough to think you should stick around. Don't hold back now... :-) >As to all the rest of you dead wood that helped Bob and >Dex to screw things up I hope you too are fired. You >couldn't think outside the box, and couldn't allow outsider >input to make a difference. Now you will pay. Yow! I hope _my_ eyebrows grow back after this. >I was right more than once. Kiss my a$$. And, er, ... >Good luck to Ardent as they clean house. I wasn't too >thrilled with the Ardent purchase, especially for what >Informix paid for it, but it appears the Ardent folks >aren't too keen on the waste and mismanagement in Menlo >and now they will make things happen with a more >productive twist. >Good bye to Informix Menlo Park. >I never made it to Menlo, it was never worth my time. Wow. Strong language there. Luckily Tim's never been too shy to tell us exactly how he feels. :-) However, before everybody writes Uncle Timmy off as a madman with an axe in his hand and a gleam in his eye (there seem to be several posts of that nature already), I'd like to inform those of us who weren't around at the time, that without that special gleam in Timmy's eye, we probably would not have Informix on Linux (IoL). Timmy started up and headed up the body of IIUG "lesser mortals" (comprising some very gifted and astute individuals who were just normal IIUG members, not swanky board members or anything) who helped provide a "business case" for IoL. (And that an ISV would have to have business case provided for them on the opportunity Linux provided [and then not take it seriously], speaks volumes... )-: If Informix had listened to that team from the get-go, Informix would probably have owned the Linux market. Instead, they diddled and twiddled and farted about for over a year before doing anything constructive. They could have had over a year on Oracle, Sybase and the rest. You can say that's just hindsight, but the fact is, Timmy (and the rest of us) were saying exactly that then. No-one was talking about commercial databases on Linux when we started. I sat through a part of that process, but I gave up on Informix very early on. Timmy went the whole way (along with a couple of others, who were also very wise and important and just as committed, but whose names I won't mention in case anyone thinks they're as crazy as Timmy! :-) I sat through some long-distance calls where some outstanding ideas were offered (none of them mine, of course, mine were all dross! :-) but every idea was met with inertia, complacency and irritating smugness at a senior management level. Every hoop we jumped through just lead to another pointless and irrelevant hoop. Based on that experience alone, I can fully understand Tim's anger and feelings of vindication, without necessarily agreeing with everything he says or the way that he says it. I also didn't put up with nearly as much of it as he did. From my perspective, Informix seemed to have a number of techies (and some others) on-board to the concept on IoL, but management buy-in only reluctantly came after Oracle declared they were going to do it. Before that (and after that), I distinctly felt like we were kept at a distance and given the old mushroom treatment. And if anyone disagrees with me on this, two words (and they're not from Timmy's vocabulary, don't worry! :-) Those words, in full, are "Stealth Marketing"... There are other reasons I know of for Timmy to be disgruntled, and IMHO, most of them have merit. I think this is the right forum to air those (or any) Informix-related grievances, especially as we don't have a comp.database.informix.rants or a comp.databases.informix.timmy.tells.us.exactly.how.he.feels (or even a comp.databases.informix.latin :0) and it is a directly relevant observation on the *business* of Informix, albeit non-technical. I might balk at the frankness of the post (in this forum anyway, this is *nothing* compared to an average day in alt.jokes.limericks), but my real concern is the rather personal nature of the comments. I'm not sure that it's right or fair to have a go at Bob in this forum, because I'm pretty sure he's not around to defend himself. However, it is unfortunately so, that the head of the organisation must carry the ultimate responsibility for when things go wrong. I just hope this post doesn't spawn a whole bunch of personal attacks on Informix staff at the intellectual level of "that jammy Sun-wielding git Marco in tech support and his rapidly climbing SETI score can kiss my a$$..." :-) ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Clownster, I will try to be brief, it is a difficult thing for me, but I will try to keep this short. Thanks for your kind words. Talk about the Peter Principle alive and kicking at Informix. I imagine another class action lawsuit is keeping Booby busy enough, not to mention the specter of major mismanagement issues looming in the background. Interesting that until now Informix didn't have anyone in charge with any software business experience. Dex was rewarded but maybe more importantly, he was cannon fodder from the beginning. Now it appears Ardent will have the upper hand for a while at least. But the agenda for engines may now shift towards what Ardent sells vs what Informix used to sell. This is most disconcerting in the context that almost nobody I know of is using Ardent data bases of any kind. If Mr. Gyenes thinks multivalue ( or whatever they are called ) data bases are in vogue, he might want to take a closer look around. Nobody is using them. Indeed Informix/Ardent or Ardent/Informix will be out of business soon enough if this tact is taken. Rob, regarding my comments that got this discussion started... No apology coming from me Rob. While you and the rest of the IIUG were playing it safe, sucking up to Informix for your own political agenda, getting your noses brown, and making sure your fingers didn't get dirty, I took the bullet for Informix on Linux, all of it, and with clear intent of getting the job done. You may not like my style, and my words, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong, most of this whole past 5 years I've been right on the money. I played it with the IIUG but the rewards were hardly worth it. The fact that you and others inside/outside the IIUG didn't get it then or now didn't help at all. Most of if not all of the IIUG were enablers who actually got in the way of getting things done. By the IIUG trying to "help" they actually enabled bad thinking and bad behavior inside Informix. The IIUG was very good at undermining an end-user position in favor of their own personal political agendas. Informix had a great laugh watching the IIUG chew on its own. The course of computing history changed in spite of Informix stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance, kicking and screaming the whole way, and in spite of the IIUG "helping". I have to thank a few hearty souls inside that were able to lobby hard as much as I did on the outside, it was a major battle that none of us want to repeat. Look back at the '98 conference, and you'll see if it hadn't been for Informix on Linux, there would have been nothing else for announcements except an unusable server for Windows, and a few other paltry product announcements that to this day nobody cares about. If you think an apology is coming, get it from Booby. He's the one who ran the ship into the reef. If anybody is owed an apology it's me and every single developer and end-user of Informix who wasted their time on this technology only to see it literally disappear from the face of the earth. To the point of where we are today, even after Informix was the first enterprise level data base on Linux it went nowhere, even with people like me and a few others willing to make things happen. The ineptness of those left with Linux ports in hand did little to market it correctly if at all, and refused to take any outside advice or help on making things happen. The Silicon Valley arrogance was overwhelming. NO marketing at all for Informix on Linux or any of the rest of it, what a waste of a marketing opportunity. Management decided that they instead wanted to chase and chance after yet another risky market like Illustra that they DIDN'T have a business case for, trying to fool everyone into thinking they were an internet company. Such fools. Imagine if they had taken the REAL WORLD serious how things might be today, instead of the fantasy world of ORDMBS/academic-elitism, coupled with internet dot-com-insanity. Linux was a battle we won, but the we lost the war. Now the spoils go to Ardent. It ain't over yet, if Ardent doesn't get it they will be the final nail in the coffin. Speaking of clowns, Obnoxio, regarding your historical perspective, thanks again for your kind words, and backgrounder. It was a pleasure working with you on Linux. One of these days we'll have a beer or two together. See also: http://www.informationweek.com/709/09iulnx.htm Regarding the End of Informix As We Know It in case you were in training or had your head in the sand or up your a s s: http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/20000810/news/current/ifmx.htx?source=blq/yhoo&dist=yhoo http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20000811/tc/who_wants_to_be_a_database_vendor__1.html http://yahoo.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2489585.html?pt.yfin.cat_fin.txt.ne http://biz.yahoo.com/oo/000810/33958.html http://yahoo.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2482297.html?pt.yfin.cat_fin.txt.ne Excuse me now, I have Quake III to play, it allows me the virtual opportunity to act out what I could not do in real life. :-) Tim -- . Tim Schaefer .- tschaefe@bellsouth.net .-- http://www.inxutil.com .--- .---- I am a citizen of the United States of America, where we have .----- the right to speak freely, without censorship, guaranteed in .---- our country's constitution. It is a right not a privilege I .--- was born with and will continue to exercise until I die. I will .-- stand up and speak until I cannot speak anymore. If you don't .- like it you are cordially invited to K I S S M Y A S S. My . forefathers shed blood for my rights and I'll not take them lightly.

Tim Schaefer wrote in message <3995F9CC.127BB9A0@bellsouth.net>... >Clownster, > >I will try to be brief, it is a difficult thing for me, but I >will try to keep this short. > >Thanks for your kind words. Talk about the Peter Principle alive >and kicking at Informix. I imagine another class action lawsuit >is keeping Booby busy enough, not to mention the specter of major >mismanagement issues looming in the background. > >Interesting that until now Informix didn't have anyone in charge >with any software business experience. Dex was rewarded but >maybe more importantly, he was cannon fodder from the beginning. > >Now it appears Ardent will have the upper hand for a while at >least. But the agenda for engines may now shift towards what >Ardent sells vs what Informix used to sell. This is most >disconcerting in the context that almost nobody I know of is >using Ardent data bases of any kind. If Mr. Gyenes thinks >multivalue ( or whatever they are called ) data bases are in >vogue, he might want to take a closer look around. Nobody is >using them. Indeed Informix/Ardent or Ardent/Informix will >be out of business soon enough if this tact is taken. > Hmmm, that's what you seem to imply with Illustra, yet there still here... >Rob, regarding my comments that got this discussion started... > >No apology coming from me Rob. While you and the rest of the >IIUG were playing it safe, sucking up to Informix for your own >political agenda, getting your noses brown, and making sure >your fingers didn't get dirty, I took the bullet for Informix on >Linux, all of it, and with clear intent of getting the job done. >You may not like my style, and my words, but it doesn't mean that >I'm wrong, most of this whole past 5 years I've been right on >the money. I played it with the IIUG but the rewards were hardly >worth it. > Yeah, but we do this for the fight, not the reward. Getting the job done not looking good. >The fact that you and others inside/outside the IIUG didn't get >it then or now didn't help at all. Most of if not all of the >IIUG were enablers who actually got in the way of getting things >done. By the IIUG trying to "help" they actually enabled bad >thinking and bad behavior inside Informix. The IIUG was very ??? E.g.? >good at undermining an end-user position in favor of their own >personal political agendas. Informix had a great laugh watching Yeah, who, when, f*ck it, Name names. >the IIUG chew on its own. > >The course of computing history changed in spite of Informix >stupidity, arrogance, and ignorance, kicking and screaming the >whole way, and in spite of the IIUG "helping". I have to >thank a few hearty souls inside that were able to lobby hard as >much as I did on the outside, it was a major battle that none of >us want to repeat. Look back at the '98 conference, and you'll >see if it hadn't been for Informix on Linux, there would have >been nothing else for announcements except an unusable server >for Windows, and a few other paltry product announcements that >to this day nobody cares about. > >If you think an apology is coming, get it from Booby. He's the >one who ran the ship into the reef. If anybody is owed an >apology it's me and every single developer and end-user of >Informix who wasted their time on this technology only to see >it literally disappear from the face of the earth. > What disappeared? I'm running Informix 7 on Linux now. Informix XPS is stll here, you use it. Informix 9 is still here (and 7+9 are finally getting completely merged). - 7 was the basic engine - 9.1x was the merge it but keep 7 going - 9.12,9.14 etc added features+ the blades moved up versions to become more stable + add features. - 7 kept being enhanced 7.30,7.31 adding better debugging/support stuff+improved performance + added ER - 9.20 and soon 9.30 will merge the 2 engines. - Workgroup Edition appeared at 1/3 the price to replace SE. how else would you have done the merge? Now there is the i.Sell,i.Reach, Media Server appearing to use blades to provide quick to build solutions... - 8.x got developed (you use it!) - 8.20 and now 8.30 appeared - 4js build Dyamic 4gl and Informix bought it. The tools strategy failed but when someone else got it right for you, Informix bought them. ?? What stuff got lost? >To the point of where we are today, even after Informix was the >first enterprise level data base on Linux it went nowhere, even >with people like me and a few others willing to make things happen. >The ineptness of those left with Linux ports in hand did little >to market it correctly if at all, and refused to take any outside >advice or help on making things happen. The Silicon Valley >arrogance was overwhelming. NO marketing at all for Informix on >Linux or any of the rest of it, what a waste of a marketing >opportunity. > >Management decided that they instead wanted to chase and chance >after yet another risky market like Illustra that they DIDN'T have >a business case for, trying to fool everyone into thinking they >were an internet company. Such fools. > ?? Everyone else is move Internet and e-commerce based. What Informix should NOT be in this market?? The market for plug-ins into the engine IS there. My last company built document management system by linking RDBMS and full text search engines. With text searching blades this can all be done in the engine. Much simpler, faster, built by the vendors once not by ever document management company. Funny I thought document management was important and text searching kinda useful. >Imagine if they had taken the REAL WORLD serious how things might >be today, instead of the fantasy world of ORDMBS/academic-elitism, >coupled with internet dot-com-insanity. > >Linux was a battle we won, but the we lost the war. Now the spoils >go to Ardent. It ain't over yet, if Ardent doesn't get it they >will be the final nail in the coffin. > >Speaking of clowns, Obnoxio, regarding your historical perspective, >thanks again for your kind words, and backgrounder. It was a >pleasure working with you on Linux. One of these days we'll have >a beer or two together. > >See also: http://www.informationweek.com/709/09iulnx.htm > 'Linux is taking off' - agreed. >Regarding the End of Informix As We Know It in case you were >in training or had your head in the sand or up your a s s: > >http://cbs.marketwatch.com/archive/20000810/news/current/ifmx.htx?source=bl q/yhoo&dist=yhoo Informix is taking the financial hit and doing what needs to be done. Hmm, sounds like the right approach. >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20000811/tc/who_wants_to_be_a_database_vend or__1.html "But the database is now the key piece of infrastructure. It's the e-commerce repository." Sounds like a document management repository to me. >http://yahoo.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2489585.html?pt.yfin.cat_fin.txt.ne "Informix, the No. 3 database maker behind Oracle and IBM" Hmm, number 3 in

Tim Schaefer <tschaefe@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >See also: http://www.informationweek.com/709/09iulnx.htm > >Regarding the End of Informix As We Know It in case you were >in training or had your head in the sand or up your a s s: > Tim (and OTC), Thanks for the clarification. As a newbie to the entire db arena, I have yet to find all the news resources that cover Informix. What I meant by being in training, was that you alluded to some kind of big happening and I guess I thought I would have heard about it since I was right there at the source. I happen to be a mother of 2 (a surly 3 year old and a surly 15 year old), full time employee and a full time college student. I don't always have time to comb the Internet for every speck of news and lurk here in hopes of learning something from the gurus. When you posted the original, I did a search on the two names you mentioned (yes, really I didn't know who they were) and the only news I could find was that one had stepped down and the other stepped in his place in 1999 (or was it 1997?). In any case, I didn't think it was possible for you to have that loooooong of a fuse, so I didn't think that was what you were upset about. So next I went to a technical condensed news headline source and saw nothing there. Finally, I went to Informix site itself and found nothing there. So imagine, what was going through my head. Especially, since OTC wasn't around to fill us in on who you are. And by the way, while I appreciate your freedom of speech (I spent 15 years in the Air Force helping to keep it free for you and I descend from American Revolutionaries (not to mention there is no swear word I haven't heard or said)) you would sound a lot more creditable if you used *original* language instead of the usual "small" talk. I also agree that you don't need to apologize. This is a "forum" and by definition should be an public place for open discussion. On the other hand I now understand why you are so upset and I can see how you would feel the way you do. Good luck on your QIII game. Wynne ----------------------------------------------------------- Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free! http://www.keen.com

wyn441 wrote: > Tim (and OTC), > > Thanks for the clarification. As a newbie to the entire db > arena, I have yet to find all the news resources that cover > Informix. What I meant by being in training, was that you > alluded to some kind of big happening and I guess I thought I > would have heard about it since I was right there at the source. Well it's probably not the cheeriest news in the world for people who are customers of Informix, but it does add some stability to the situation for the moment. I pity newcomers to this party. > I happen to be a mother of 2 (a surly 3 year old and a surly 15 > year old), full time employee and a full time college student. I > don't always have time to comb the Internet for every speck of > news and lurk here in hopes of learning something from the > gurus. When you posted the original, I did a search on the two > names you mentioned (yes, really I didn't know who they were) > and the only news I could find was that one had stepped down and > the other stepped in his place in 1999 (or was it 1997?). In any > case, I didn't think it was possible for you to have that > loooooong of a fuse, so I didn't think that was what you were > upset about. So next I went to a technical condensed news > headline source and saw nothing there. Finally, I went to > Informix site itself and found nothing there. So imagine, what > was going through my head. Especially, since OTC wasn't around > to fill us in on who you are. I've been using Informix products since 1988, far too long for me to sit back and watch a bunch of morons screw things up and not say anything. Trust me though, I'm not upset about it anymore, just getting my digs in to a bunch of spineless, stupid whimps who ran a company into the ground. > And by the way, while I appreciate your freedom of speech (I > spent 15 years in the Air Force helping to keep it free for you > and I descend from American Revolutionaries (not to mention > there is no swear word I haven't heard or said)) you would sound > a lot more creditable if you used *original* language instead of > the usual "small" talk. I also agree that you don't need to > apologize. This is a "forum" and by definition should be an > public place for open discussion. Thanks for your concern about my credibility. While some may argue against it, at this point in my life I really don't care what people think about my sentiments. My intuition never fails me, this company has been screwed up for the past 6 years ever since Illustra and Phil White. Now it is over. A lot of people want politeness regarding Informix, but the fact is, the stupidity in Menlo has a ripple effect on Informix work that I depend on to make a living--correction--USED TO depend on. Now I'm having fun with Perl, CGI and a real e-commerce company. > On the other hand I now understand why you are so upset and I > can see how you would feel the way you do. Good luck on your > QIII game. > Wynne > Good luck to you in your workings with Informix products. I hope the training pays off for you. You might want to stop by my web site to pick up a few tools. I don't know how much longer my site will be relevant in light of the recent turn of events, but I'll be keeping the lights on for a while, probably till the end of the year. I have a couple of XPS-specific code-generators that are available if people contact me off-line that are not on my web-site. I also contributed to a book for DBAs who use data bases on Linux, over at http://www.syngress.com/book_catalog/73_odba/book_catalog_73_odba.htm I did the chapter on Installing Informix on Linux. Take care, Tim -- . .- .-- .--- .---- Tim Schaefer .----- tschaefe@bellsouth.net .---- http://www.inxutil.com .--- .-- .- .

smooth1 wrote: > > - 9.20 and soon 9.30 will merge the 2 engines. > - Workgroup Edition appeared at 1/3 the price to replace SE. Why exactly is it that SE has to be replaced ? -- David Stes Molenstraat 5 B-2018 Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, Belgie Tel +32 3 237 43 54 Fax +32 3 237 40 76 Email stes@pandora.be

David Stes wrote in message <3996D0C7.4F8BF4C0@pandora.be>... >smooth1 wrote: >> >> - 9.20 and soon 9.30 will merge the 2 engines. >> - Workgroup Edition appeared at 1/3 the price to replace SE. > >Why exactly is it that SE has to be replaced ? > 1. No logical recovery:- After a crash or if a sqlexec process (i.e. session) dies uncleanly or is killed you have to a) bcheck the whole database b) in an index has one corrupt entry, rebuild the whole index rather than rollingback the transaction. 2. No checks on the data. IDS has page header/trailer timestamps and does consistency checking on each page accessed. (Hence Assert Failed messages). 3. No way to backup with the users on. Hence most sites get at least minor inconsistencies in their backups. 4. No way to cleanly kill a process (IDS has onmode -z to cleanly kill a session). Hence, my backups are corrupt, I can't handle crashes, kill errant users and I won't know about corruption until someone spots that the system is producing crap data (if this gets spotted at all!). SE is out of data in terms of data integrity and should be dropped in favour of IDS Workgroup Edition. > >-- >David Stes Molenstraat 5 B-2018 Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, Belgie >Tel +32 3 237 43 54 Fax +32 3 237 40 76 Email stes@pandora.be

smooth1 wrote: > > SE is out of data in terms of data integrity and should be dropped > in favour of IDS Workgroup Edition. If this is the case, I wouldn't mind they would sell SE now at 1/3 the price they do it now! It seems logical that the "better" product (which you claim is IDS) would be more expensive than the supposedly inferior product (SE). Although I must say that for a medium database as we run, of about 20 gigabytes, which has to be online only during office hours, SE has been doing a great job, for over 10-12 years. It's a good product. -- David Stes Molenstraat 5 B-2018 Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, Belgie Tel +32 3 237 43 54 Fax +32 3 237 40 76 Email stes@pandora.be

In article <39971973_2@news2.vip.uk.com>, smooth1 <smooth1@iclway.co.uk> writes <snipped> > > > Hence, my backups are corrupt, I can't handle crashes, kill errant > users and I won't know about corruption until someone spots > that the system is producing crap data (if this gets spotted at all!). > > SE is out of data in terms of data integrity and should be dropped > in favour of IDS Workgroup Edition. Technically better does not always mean more appropriate for *all* users. Informix need to get their heads round that fact. Of course there are all the flaws in SE that you have pointed out, but it's a much simpler product to run and administer and because of that a much better choice for many (if not most) small users. -- Surfer!

Surfer! wrote in message ... >In article <39971973_2@news2.vip.uk.com>, smooth1 <smooth1@iclway.co.uk> >writes ><snipped> >> >> >> Hence, my backups are corrupt, I can't handle crashes, kill errant >> users and I won't know about corruption until someone spots >> that the system is producing crap data (if this gets spotted at all!). >> >> SE is out of data in terms of data integrity and should be dropped >> in favour of IDS Workgroup Edition. > >Technically better does not always mean more appropriate for *all* >users. Informix need to get their heads round that fact. Of course Yes, it does in terms of reliability >there are all the flaws in SE that you have pointed out, but it's a much >simpler product to run and administer and because of that a much better >choice for many (if not most) small users. > Where in your contract with small users does it say If the system crashes/power to the system fails then upon restart it is ok for the system a) to have some of the data unaccessible b) to have some of the data in the system to now be wrong c) to lose transactional integrity. look, customer X has a credit note for 10000 dollars and our account has not been debited! An easy way to get out of debt....Err why are these people repossessing the furniture?? d) To produce funny errors >-- >Surfer!

In article <v0M+XdBPs+l5EwS$@nevis-view.demon.co.uk>, Surfer! <nevis- view@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes >In article <39971973_2@news2.vip.uk.com>, smooth1 <smooth1@iclway.co.uk> >writes ><snipped> >> >> >> Hence, my backups are corrupt, I can't handle crashes, kill errant >> users and I won't know about corruption until someone spots >> that the system is producing crap data (if this gets spotted at all!). >> >> SE is out of data in terms of data integrity and should be dropped >> in favour of IDS Workgroup Edition. > >Technically better does not always mean more appropriate for *all* >users. Informix need to get their heads round that fact. Of course >there are all the flaws in SE that you have pointed out, but it's a much >simpler product to run and administer and because of that a much better >choice for many (if not most) small users. > In the 7.31.UC6 release of IDS Workgroup Edition the previous product restriction notice of up to 2 RISC processors or up to 4 Intel has been replaced by: "CPU LIMITS. Licensee is restricted from installing and using this product with more than one (1) Intel CPU or one (1) RISC CPU." I'm afraid I can't get my head around where this positions IDS-WE in relation to SE, but it means that for any multi-cpu box you need the full product if you want IDS. Andrew Lennard andy@kontron.demon.co.uk

In article <39986a9a_2@news2.vip.uk.com>, smooth1 <smooth1@iclway.co.uk> writes > >Surfer! wrote in message ... >>In article <39971973_2@news2.vip.uk.com>, smooth1 <smooth1@iclway.co.uk> >>writes >><snipped> >>> >>> >>> Hence, my backups are corrupt, I can't handle crashes, kill errant >>> users and I won't know about corruption until someone spots >>> that the system is producing crap data (if this gets spotted at all!). >>> >>> SE is out of data in terms of data integrity and should be dropped >>> in favour of IDS Workgroup Edition. >> >>Technically better does not always mean more appropriate for *all* >>users. Informix need to get their heads round that fact. Of course > > Yes, it does in terms of reliability > >>there are all the flaws in SE that you have pointed out, but it's a much >>simpler product to run and administer and because of that a much better >>choice for many (if not most) small users. >> > > Where in your contract with small users does it say > > If the system crashes/power to the system fails then upon > restart it is ok for the system > > a) to have some of the data unaccessible > b) to have some of the data in the system to now be wrong > c) to lose transactional integrity. > look, customer X has a credit note for 10000 dollars and > our account has not been debited! An easy way to get out > of debt....Err why are these people repossessing the > furniture?? > > d) To produce funny errors We have dozens of SE users who are aware of its limitations. They are also aware of the technical advantages of WGS. However at the moment SE is still a more appropriate product for them. > > >>-- >>Surfer! > > -- Surfer!