Re: Informix running on Linux

In article <5jpm4u$pb@cssun.mathcs.emory.edu> billy@west.co.za ("Billy Wheeler") writes: > >On 25 Apr 97 at 4:37, Peter Wiley wrote: > >> In article <pf7LsCABi7XzEw5n@smooth1.demon.co.uk> David Williams <djw@smooth1.demon.co.uk> writes: >> [snip] >> > I think they should >> > a) dump SE it's outdated >> >> NO No No No No noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. >> >> I trust that's clear enough. >> >> SE is one of the all-time *great* database products for small databases & >> sites who don't want/can't afford a DBA to nursemaid a pain in the arse >> DBMS. It works just fine for databases in the <10Gb range that don't need >> BLOBs and don't need to be up 24 hours/day. > >That's a relief - I thought I was the only dinosaur out there. Now >there's a chance we won't be entirely extinct... :-) > >I find that, for the majority of my customers, SE is perfectly >adequate, simple and performs well. Even OWS is a nightmare to >administer *by*comparison*. > >It's all very well for us in the technical department to forget that >while we can deal with and enjoy the innovations of the DSA range, >most of our users are still relatively computer illiterate and >approach the technology with trepidation. If SE goes, I confidently predict that the users will, too. And not to Online in any of its guises; they'll go to NT & SQL Server. >But this is all entirely academic, because the feeling I got from my >last few off-line discussions with some people at Informix was that >4GL and SE were being relegated to the ash heap of history... :-(( Dunno. I was down at Informix Australia last week and the message I got was that there was NO intention of dropping SE. Or 4GL. It certainly isn't mentioned, though - you gotta ask about it. The new system I'm building will use OWS for production, because I'll need 24x7 availability and some form of replication. Otherwise, I'd use SE. When it grew beyond 10Gb would be time to move, IMO. Peter Wiley