Re: Is IBM actually doing something with IDS?
Not a technical support thread but an argument about IDS licensing: a poster ('Tool') complained that IBM offers no free, unlimited-time, fully functional developer edition of Informix, only time-limited evaluations or the IIUG version capped at 5 connections and without ER/HDR. Carsten Haese repeatedly asked how those limits actually hinder development; Tool said he shouldn't have to justify his needs, while DA Morgan argued load testing and replication are needed during development. Others pointed to IBM evaluation licences and the PartnerWorld/Value Package route (noted as costing ~US$2,000). No resolution is recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:55:21 -0700, Tool wrote > No. The IIUG version is an altered product. > Let's recall what you were asking for. You want a "no charge, unlimited time" license to develop applications for the database. The "developing applications" point was important for you to make, because it means you can't live with a time-limited evaluation version, because you can't develop an application in three months. Well, fair enough, the IIUG version lets you develop an application in as much time as you need. You certainly don't need more than 5 concurrent users to *develop* an application. You certainly don't need ER or HDR to *develop* an application. How do the "alterations" in the IIUG version restrict your ability to *develop* an IDS application? -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
How do you know what I need to develop an application? Speak for yourself! And certainly stop being a sycophant for IBM!!! All they need is encouragement from people like you to keep from making things right. You give them the easy way out every single time by sucking up to the status quo "I Build Mediocrity" manifesto of IBM. You remind me of people who think income tax is no big deal only to find out they had no money! -t- Carsten Haese wrote: > On Wed, 30 May 2007 14:55:21 -0700, Tool wrote >> No. The IIUG version is an altered product. >> > Let's recall what you were asking for. You want a "no charge, unlimited time" > license to develop applications for the database. The "developing > applications" point was important for you to make, because it means you can't > live with a time-limited evaluation version, because you can't develop an > application in three months. Well, fair enough, the IIUG version lets you > develop an application in as much time as you need. You certainly don't need > more than 5 concurrent users to *develop* an application. You certainly don't > need ER or HDR to *develop* an application. > > How do the "alterations" in the IIUG version restrict your ability to > *develop* an IDS application? > > -- > Carsten Haese > http://informixdb.sourceforge.net >
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 10:20 -0700, Tool wrote: > How do you know what I need to develop an application? > > Speak for yourself! > > And certainly stop being a sycophant for IBM!!! All they > need is encouragement from people like you to keep from > making things right. You give them the easy way out every > single time by sucking up to the status quo "I Build > Mediocrity" manifesto of IBM. > > You remind me of people who think income tax is no big deal > only to find out they had no money! Resorting to insults isn't not going to convince anyone that they should give you a fully-functional, time-unlimited, user-unlimited version of IDS. Thanks for proving that you're a troll. I'm done. -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
Actually, from a technical perspective I was being polite, and as everyone who knows me knows, I really didn't insult you. You really would have known if I had hurled insults, I'm hardly a troll. I would have instead called you something else besides a sycophant, and really said something about IBM that I think would have been a direct shot at their horrible, disgusting corporate management. You really don't know much about IBM, so don't be so eager to take their side, especially when they are below par with other vendors offering databases. Carsten Haese wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 10:20 -0700, Tool wrote: >> How do you know what I need to develop an application? >> >> Speak for yourself! >> >> And certainly stop being a sycophant for IBM!!! All they >> need is encouragement from people like you to keep from >> making things right. You give them the easy way out every >> single time by sucking up to the status quo "I Build >> Mediocrity" manifesto of IBM. >> >> You remind me of people who think income tax is no big deal >> only to find out they had no money! > > Resorting to insults isn't not going to convince anyone that they should > give you a fully-functional, time-unlimited, user-unlimited version of > IDS. > > Thanks for proving that you're a troll. I'm done. >
Carsten Haese wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 10:20 -0700, Tool wrote: >> How do you know what I need to develop an application? >> >> Speak for yourself! >> >> And certainly stop being a sycophant for IBM!!! All they >> need is encouragement from people like you to keep from >> making things right. You give them the easy way out every >> single time by sucking up to the status quo "I Build >> Mediocrity" manifesto of IBM. >> >> You remind me of people who think income tax is no big deal >> only to find out they had no money! > > Resorting to insults isn't not going to convince anyone that they should > give you a fully-functional, time-unlimited, user-unlimited version of > IDS. > > Thanks for proving that you're a troll. I'm done. You are of course correct. There is no reason to insult people to make a point nor is there a need to. If one compares the marketing success of products that do provide fully functional software for download and those that don't one might notice a relationship. One has ~40% marketshare and the other ~3%. One has colleges and universities teaching the next generation of DB professionals to use the product the other does not. At dice.com one provides 30+% of available employment for RDBMS professionals the other 0.66%. The numbers speak louder than any schoolyard insult. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:05 -0700, Tool wrote: > I'm hardly a troll. Maybe not, but you're behaving like one. I asked you a very simple question: 'How do the "alterations" in the IIUG version restrict your ability to develop an IDS application?' Instead of answering my question, you resorted to name-calling. -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
Actually you said directly that I certainly didn't need more than 5 connections, and didn't need replication working. How do YOU know what _I_ need? Do you know what my application is? Regarding my behavior, you thought I was a troll, which is just as much an insult as me thinking your behavior is a sycophant. So, we see things differently. It's important to understand how much IBM wants IDS to succeed in dribbles, incrementally, as long as it doesn't succeed more than DB2. If IBM wanted to really have IDS succeed they would be doing more, independently of DB2. Until that happens you really won't see IDS on its own terms of succeeding or failing. It is on IBM's terms to sit in the shadow of DB2, which means IDS will never get to prove its success or failure separately from IBM/DB2. Everytime one of you people out there rah-rah-go-go-IBM you reduce the pressure for IBM to innovate and move IDS into the sunshine. Right now it's nice to see improvements, but it's still not where it needs to be. If it were a flower it's in the shade, visible but still not getting sun. Carsten Haese wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:05 -0700, Tool wrote: >> I'm hardly a troll. > > Maybe not, but you're behaving like one. I asked you a very simple > question: 'How do the "alterations" in the IIUG version restrict your > ability to develop an IDS application?' Instead of answering my > question, you resorted to name-calling. >
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:59 -0700, Tool wrote: > Actually you said directly that I certainly didn't need more > than 5 connections, and didn't need replication working. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I will now ask you for the third time: How do the "alterations" in the IIUG version restrict your ability to develop an IDS application? In other words: What kind of application are you developing that requires more than 5 concurrent sessions and working replication during development? -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
Carsten Haese wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:59 -0700, Tool wrote: >> Actually you said directly that I certainly didn't need more >> than 5 connections, and didn't need replication working. > > Please feel free to prove me wrong. I will now ask you for the third > time: How do the "alterations" in the IIUG version restrict your ability > to develop an IDS application? > > In other words: What kind of application are you developing that > requires more than 5 concurrent sessions and working replication during > development? Personally, and again speaking from an Oracle perspective, I can't think of any application I would ever want to develop that wouldn't involve more than 5 concurrent sessions and working replication. But your question misses the point. Wouldn't it benefit the Informix user community if the fully functional product were available? Surely those interested in putting Informix into production are no more likely to be thieves than those putting other products into production. It seems to me the issue here is trust. And the message coming through loudly and clearly is that IBM does not trust those who use its products to act with integrity. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:41 -0700, DA Morgan wrote: > Personally, and again speaking from an Oracle perspective, I can't > think of any application I would ever want to develop that wouldn't > involve more than 5 concurrent sessions and working replication. During development? Of course you'd want more than 5 concurrent sessions and replication in production, but I find it hard to believe that you'd need that during development. -- Carsten Haese http://informixdb.sourceforge.net
Carsten, I appreciate your position, I understand your position, but I do not and will not ever support IBM handing out crippled releases, and timebombs. I was on a recent proof-of-concept with DB2 that took over a year to complete, and we had a schedule for it that we had to stay on track. Part of the success of any product is in the sales process. That process involves technical discussions with experienced users, developers, industry whispers and innuendo, proof-of-concept studies, and the whole ball of wax in evaluating products. I do not have to explain to MySQL, Sybase, or Oracle the "why" behind my insistence on getting a production-ready version for developing applications. These companies get it. Developers are key to the process of selling the engine. Even VARs understand the value of an inside advocate to help sell an account on the merits of the software, and may even lean on that momentum in getting a sale. Even IBM uses case studies of successful installations, they just want to cherry pick VARs and others willing to pay big money for it. I want to build applications for whatever reason, and should have a developer's license, using the same software that would be in production. I have never seen anyone who develops for a given software abuse the developer license, but I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule. I see more and more shops actually quite paranoid about licensing and doing everything they can to be compliant. And now the current trend towards HA and DR means we have even more to know about in a given environment. Lots of stuff we need to understand and have experience in, but you are not always able to wait till you get to work to learn something, you need to know it before you go to work. Like I said before, you don't know why I need what I need, but I don't have to justify it to you or anyone but the vendor. In the process of evaluating products, companies _do_ want to test all the functionality of a database, and even DB2 can be downloaded without a timebomb--at least it was this way a while back. As an experienced DBA I also need to keep my skillset current, and that may mean wanting to play with the software to understand how it works, but this is not possible if key features are disabled. Nothing is more embarrassing than telling somebody you have experience but not with the real production software, just a test release or some hacked version. -t- Carsten Haese wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 11:59 -0700, Tool wrote: >> Actually you said directly that I certainly didn't need more >> than 5 connections, and didn't need replication working. > > Please feel free to prove me wrong. I will now ask you for the third > time: How do the "alterations" in the IIUG version restrict your ability > to develop an IDS application? > > In other words: What kind of application are you developing that > requires more than 5 concurrent sessions and working replication during > development? >
Tool With a large proof of concept and tight product deadlines over a year and a large development environment I believe that you need not just the software but access to the proper level of support and assistance from within the organisation. What happens if you hit a defect and need a fix in order to meet your timescales? A free download would be unsupported or community supported. Its not just the access to the software that needs addressed for projects of such magnitude that need addressed. IBM does provide evaluation licenses for such projects and has processes in place to ensure that such a project is properly and professionally supported. If you have projects of that magnitude, discuss with your reseller or you account rep. My opinion is that this approach is much better than a community supported opportunity. Alternatively, if you are a service provider or software house, a fully functioning version of IDS is available and supported through the PartnerWorld program. All of IBMs PA products are available and supported through the PartnerWorld.
Carsten Haese wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:41 -0700, DA Morgan wrote: >> Personally, and again speaking from an Oracle perspective, I can't >> think of any application I would ever want to develop that wouldn't >> involve more than 5 concurrent sessions and working replication. > > During development? Yes during development. Do you build multi-use applications and then just throw them over the cubicle wall? > Of course you'd want more than 5 concurrent sessions and replication in > production, but I find it hard to believe that you'd need that during > development. Again, speaking from my perspective, we have a free tool we download from an Oracle employee SwingBench (http://www.dominicgiles.com). With it we stress test in development by throwing workloads against our code: Dialing in multiple connections and multiple numbers and types of transactions. For me to test with hundreds of connections is not unusual ... it is the norm. Even when I run a RAC class in the lab we commonly dial in hundreds of connections per server to demonstrate load balancing and failover. I can't believe that you have a lesser burden to meet. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Yes, we had that kind of support on the project I mentioned. It was a large project, with all the bells and whistles. But not everything is done on-site, or in front of the customer, and not everyone works for IBM as a consultant, and in many cases IBM is simply providing the software and in-house expertise is used instead, only going to tech support when necessary--which we used, at no cost I might add--to get some help. So, yes the VAR/Partner channel is great for those who are in that program. What I'm obviously talking about is outside the VAR/Partner channel, and is all about the single developer like myself, or a small shop where there just isn't money to plunk down on big-ticket or even discounted versions of the software or they may or may not be able to participate as a VAR/Partner. At any rate it is odd to me that developers would have to pay for the software since they are the ones primarily pushing the product. The "everyone-pays-we-don't-give-a-shit" mentality doesn't work well if your product is in a competitive space especially in light of how technology has allowed database engines to scale. What I do on my 1-cpu system at home for the most part should work on a larger system. It is too obvious to those that get what I'm about, and simply inconceivable to those that don't. Don't worry yourself if you don't get it, the competition is depending on it. -t- scottishpoet wrote: > Tool > > With a large proof of concept and tight product deadlines over a year > and a large development environment I believe that you need not just > the software but access to the proper level of support and assistance > from within the organisation. What happens if you hit a defect and > need a fix in order to meet your timescales? A free download would be > unsupported or community supported. Its not just the access to the > software that needs addressed for projects of such magnitude that need > addressed. > > IBM does provide evaluation licenses for such projects and has > processes in place to ensure that such a project is properly and > professionally supported. > > If you have projects of that magnitude, discuss with your reseller or > you account rep. > > My opinion is that this approach is much better than a community > supported opportunity. > > Alternatively, if you are a service provider or software house, a > fully functioning version of IDS is available and supported through > the PartnerWorld program. All of IBMs PA products are available and > supported through the PartnerWorld. >
> Alternatively, if you are a service provider or software house, a > fully functioning version of IDS is available and supported through > the PartnerWorld program. All of IBMs PA products are available and > supported through the PartnerWorld. Are you talking about the Value Package thing that costs US$2,000?