Re: Informix 10 vs Oracle 10g

RollForward Wizard said: > > DA Morgan wrote: >> RollForward Wizard wrote: >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> >>>> RollForward Wizard said: >>>> >>>>> This is awesome work. I think it touches on some very salient >>>>> points, >>>>> especially regarding virtual processors and threading. It is amazing >>>>> that Oracle technology could have gone so wrong despite the amount of >>>>> money they have as a company, and how they could not come up with a >>>>> better engine--or why haven't they dumped the current engine and made >>>>> a >>>>> new one that is actually better than any other product. Simply >>>>> amazing. >>>>> All that money and they can't find anyone to make their technology >>>>> better >>>>> than it is. They must have their priorities wrong, spending so much >>>>> money >>>>> on sales and marketing. :-) >>>>> >>>>> RE: http://www.IIUG.org/resources/articles/IDS10vsOracle10g.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> You're pushing on an open door, trust me. I don't think there's a >>>> single >>>> person who uses Informix who doesn't wish that Informix and IBM were >>>> as >>>> effective at creating brand awareness for Informix as Oracle is. >>>> >>>> And then you'll find plenty of people who say Oracle don't spend >>>> ENOUGH on >>>> sales and marketing. >>>> >>> >>> If you're IBM or any company, you have to have something to sell, and >>> a market >>> that likes what you sell. If there isn't a market for Informix, no >>> matter how >>> great it is, you are not going to sell Informix to anyone. IBM, >>> Oracle, and >>> Microsoft all sell a lot of software, some products more than others. >>> At the >>> end of the day, they look at what they sell, and make decisions, just >>> like any >>> business would. If it doesn't make money, why would they continue to >>> push it? >>> >>> Oracle and Microsoft by the way do an excellent job of putting some >>> pretty wrapping >>> around all their products, something that is instructive for all of us. >>> >>> What does IBM need to do specifically to sell more Informix? Or is it >>> less about >>> "selling" Informix, and just making it more prominent, or visible, or >>> legit, or ??? >>> >>> What do IBM need to do with Informix that gives the product its' >>> proper place? >>> >>> New books? >>> >>> New co-op developer programs? ( IBM DB2 and Zend PHP Core for example >>> ) >>> >>> New promotions? >>> >>> New advertising? >>> >>> New Web Seminars? >>> >>> Road shows? >>> >>> More White Papers? >>> >>> An Informix Magazine? >>> >>> Bumper Stickers? >>> >>> Kiosk/Appliance PCs with Informix pre-installed? >>> >>> Redbooks? >>> >>> Boat Races? >>> >>> Press Releases? >> >> Convince C-level management that it isn't a path without a future. >> Right now it is impossible to view it as more viable than Sybase. >> Most business owners are looking at the list of major app vendors >> ... SAP ... Ok, eBusiness Suite (Oracle), PeopleSoft (Oracle), >> JD Edwards (Oracle), Siebel (Oracle), and thinking ... why? >> >> And Informix is not the only product where the question is asked. >> I think if one approaches it objectively, dispassionately, one >> can reasonably conclude that it is too late. A world in which the >> market is split between Oracle and Microsoft is not that hard to >> envision. > > In it's best of times did Informix ever hit past %5 of the market? In its best of times, Informix was as big as Oracle. Can you understand now how pissed off the Informix community is? -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ` dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com sending to informix-list

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > RollForward Wizard said: >> DA Morgan wrote: >>> RollForward Wizard wrote: >>>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>> >>>>> RollForward Wizard said: >>>>> >>>>>> This is awesome work. I think it touches on some very salient >>>>>> points, >>>>>> especially regarding virtual processors and threading. It is amazing >>>>>> that Oracle technology could have gone so wrong despite the amount of >>>>>> money they have as a company, and how they could not come up with a >>>>>> better engine--or why haven't they dumped the current engine and made >>>>>> a >>>>>> new one that is actually better than any other product. Simply >>>>>> amazing. >>>>>> All that money and they can't find anyone to make their technology >>>>>> better >>>>>> than it is. They must have their priorities wrong, spending so much >>>>>> money >>>>>> on sales and marketing. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> RE: http://www.IIUG.org/resources/articles/IDS10vsOracle10g.pdf >>>>> >>>>> You're pushing on an open door, trust me. I don't think there's a >>>>> single >>>>> person who uses Informix who doesn't wish that Informix and IBM were >>>>> as >>>>> effective at creating brand awareness for Informix as Oracle is. >>>>> >>>>> And then you'll find plenty of people who say Oracle don't spend >>>>> ENOUGH on >>>>> sales and marketing. >>>>> >>>> If you're IBM or any company, you have to have something to sell, and >>>> a market >>>> that likes what you sell. If there isn't a market for Informix, no >>>> matter how >>>> great it is, you are not going to sell Informix to anyone. IBM, >>>> Oracle, and >>>> Microsoft all sell a lot of software, some products more than others. >>>> At the >>>> end of the day, they look at what they sell, and make decisions, just >>>> like any >>>> business would. If it doesn't make money, why would they continue to >>>> push it? >>>> >>>> Oracle and Microsoft by the way do an excellent job of putting some >>>> pretty wrapping >>>> around all their products, something that is instructive for all of us. >>>> >>>> What does IBM need to do specifically to sell more Informix? Or is it >>>> less about >>>> "selling" Informix, and just making it more prominent, or visible, or >>>> legit, or ??? >>>> >>>> What do IBM need to do with Informix that gives the product its' >>>> proper place? >>>> >>>> New books? >>>> >>>> New co-op developer programs? ( IBM DB2 and Zend PHP Core for example >>>> ) >>>> >>>> New promotions? >>>> >>>> New advertising? >>>> >>>> New Web Seminars? >>>> >>>> Road shows? >>>> >>>> More White Papers? >>>> >>>> An Informix Magazine? >>>> >>>> Bumper Stickers? >>>> >>>> Kiosk/Appliance PCs with Informix pre-installed? >>>> >>>> Redbooks? >>>> >>>> Boat Races? >>>> >>>> Press Releases? >>> Convince C-level management that it isn't a path without a future. >>> Right now it is impossible to view it as more viable than Sybase. >>> Most business owners are looking at the list of major app vendors >>> ... SAP ... Ok, eBusiness Suite (Oracle), PeopleSoft (Oracle), >>> JD Edwards (Oracle), Siebel (Oracle), and thinking ... why? >>> >>> And Informix is not the only product where the question is asked. >>> I think if one approaches it objectively, dispassionately, one >>> can reasonably conclude that it is too late. A world in which the >>> market is split between Oracle and Microsoft is not that hard to >>> envision. >> In it's best of times did Informix ever hit past %5 of the market? > > In its best of times, Informix was as big as Oracle. > Maybe on some levels, like sales, for what, maybe 1 year. Informix never had brand recognition outside its own space. In fact most of the people I ever knew who used Informix around 1996-99 saw it peak in sales, not to mention the pre-occupation with the stock price, all hoping that it would gush into some kind of mainstream acceptance. But that never happened because management was too busy looting the company, running out the back door, oblivious to the potential of the products as actually having enough value that if they had stayed the course Informix could have REALLY been as big as Oracle, but that as we all know never happened. Most of the propellant, such as 4GL, and other value-add products were taken away, one piece at a time till there was nothing compelling to say about Informix. You can sell cars with engines a lot more easily than trying to just sell engines. Don't forget too that the market voted with their feet, and went with the products that have basically supplanted whatever unique features Informix has or had. The biggest marketing opportunity ever for Informix, the Linux market, was squandered by people who didn't even know their own product line. MySQL has taken the CISAM space, hell even Postgres gets more attention these days than Informix, with tablespaces now. ( Postgres too suffers from not having that killer app. ) XPS has little to differentiate itself from DB2. If it has more, nobody knows about it, and certainly nobody I know is going to risk their necks on software they can't find people to support it with unless they are willing to hire cheap labor they can train that doesn't care that the product has no job market or future outside that one company. What killer app do Informix engines have? Informix stays on the bench until it gets its killer app. > Can you understand now how pissed off the Informix community is? > I can understand it, and I can appreciate it. The lesson to be learned is diversification. I work on 3 separate engine brands and stay current on all of them. Don't promote or work with a product that has no application to propel it. MySQL gained a lot of steam off of PHP and Perl. MySQL has nothing unique to it from Informix SE, other than a strong application and developer community. Gee, hmmm.... In fact MySQL is now only getting features SE had 10 years ago. Even Sybase gets reasonable respect in the Linux community, although it too has nothing exciting going on without that killer app. In this market you have to think application first, then the back-end. ALL the businesses I work with think application-first, then back-end support, and how it will perform. In that regard databases are just containers. I have never gotten into a conversation about helping a business without first understanding their application stack. If the database comes up, it's a commodity context, not some race to the finish line on which one is best. Nobody cares these days, just buy faster hardware, and keep moving. And hardware is yet another piece you have to keep up on.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>Convince C-level management that it isn't a path without a future. >>>Right now it is impossible to view it as more viable than Sybase. >>>Most business owners are looking at the list of major app vendors >>>... SAP ... Ok, eBusiness Suite (Oracle), PeopleSoft (Oracle), >>>JD Edwards (Oracle), Siebel (Oracle), and thinking ... why? >>> >>>And Informix is not the only product where the question is asked. >>>I think if one approaches it objectively, dispassionately, one >>>can reasonably conclude that it is too late. A world in which the >>>market is split between Oracle and Microsoft is not that hard to >>>envision. >> >>In it's best of times did Informix ever hit past %5 of the market? > > > In its best of times, Informix was as big as Oracle. > > Can you understand now how pissed off the Informix community is? Actually yes I can ... and with good reason. But we are where we are but bemoaning the loss of the original Borland will not bring back Pascal either. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

RollForward Wizard wrote: > ALL the businesses I work with think application-first, then back-end > support, and how it will perform. Well said. No company ever chose its database first and then asked what applications run on it. First you decide on SAP vs. PeopleSoft. Then you make the clearly secondary decisions with respect to hardware, operating system and database. -- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

. "RollForward Wizard" <rollforward@rollforward.com> wrote . > Maybe on some levels, like sales, for what, maybe 1 year. Informix > never had brand recognition outside its own space. In fact most of > the people I ever knew who used Informix around 1996-99 saw it peak > in sales, not to mention the pre-occupation with the stock price, > all hoping that it would gush into some kind of mainstream acceptance. > But that never happened because management was too busy looting the > company, running out the back door, oblivious to the potential > of the products as actually having enough value that if they had > stayed the course Informix could have REALLY been as big as Oracle, > but that as we all know never happened. Most of the propellant, > such as 4GL, and other value-add products were taken away, one piece > at a time till there was nothing compelling to say about Informix. > You can sell cars with engines a lot more easily than trying to just > sell engines. > > Don't forget too that the market voted with their feet, and went with > the products that have basically supplanted whatever unique features > Informix has or had. The biggest marketing opportunity ever for > Informix, the Linux market, was squandered by people who didn't > even know their own product line. MySQL has taken the CISAM space, > hell even Postgres gets more attention these days than Informix, with > tablespaces now. ( Postgres too suffers from not having that killer > app. ) XPS has little to differentiate itself from DB2. If it has > more, nobody knows about it, and certainly nobody I know is going to > risk their necks on software they can't find people to support it with > unless they are willing to hire cheap labor they can train that doesn't > care that the product has no job market or future outside that one > company. What killer app do Informix engines have? Informix stays > on the bench until it gets its killer app. > > >> Can you understand now how pissed off the Informix community is? >> > I can understand it, and I can appreciate it. The lesson to be > learned is diversification. I work on 3 separate engine brands and > stay current on all of them. Don't promote or work with a product that > has no application to propel it. MySQL gained a lot of steam off of > PHP and Perl. MySQL has nothing unique to it from Informix SE, other > than a strong application and developer community. Gee, hmmm.... > In fact MySQL is now only getting features SE had 10 years ago. Even > Sybase gets reasonable respect in the Linux community, although it > too has nothing exciting going on without that killer app. In this > market you have to think application first, then the back-end. ALL > the businesses I work with think application-first, then back-end > support, and how it will perform. In that regard databases are just > containers. I have never gotten into a conversation about helping > a business without first understanding their application stack. If > the database comes up, it's a commodity context, not some race to > the finish line on which one is best. Nobody cares these days, just > buy faster hardware, and keep moving. And hardware is yet another > piece you have to keep up on. I think I know who you are :-) Mysql Linux Sybase are all your trade marks.

rkusenet wrote: > > I think I know who you are :-) > > Mysql > Linux > Sybase > are all your trade marks. > OTC has already called it.

DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Can you understand now how pissed off the Informix community is? > > Actually yes I can ... and with good reason. But we are where we are > but bemoaning the loss of the original Borland will not bring back > Pascal either. ROTFLMAO! :-) That's a keeper!