RE: Why you can't trust IBM when it comes to committing to Informix.

> From: pokeyman76@gmail.com > Subject: Re: Why you can't trust IBM when it comes to committing to Informix. > Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:03:33 -0700 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > I agree. IBM is trying to exploit similar products making sure each > has a chance for success. Unfortunately, Gumby's small brain can't > think but in 1 dimension and therefore misses beauty of IBM's > strategy. While I certainly can agree that IBM could promote IDS more > and things are a bit screwed up when it comes to some of the sales > support and collateral issues and develoment investment, IBM has done > a pretty spectacular job in resurrecting IDS from the ashes and > Janet's attempts to kill it. > LOL! Poor Pokeyman. Such an insult usually comes from someone who's deficient somewhere else. (And when girls tell you that size doesn't matter, they're lying just to keep you from feeling inadequate). And yet again, while Pokeymon tries to defend IBM and says we should be "great full", and misses the point. One minute IBM positions IDS as the OLTP engine, and DB2 as the DW engine. Yet they turn around and release a TPC-C benchmark on DB2. So what message is IBM sending to its customers? (On a side note, Informix had XPS and had they kept it together, project arrowhead would have successfully merged 7,8, and 9 in to one product. So IDS would have been an excellent VERY LARGE DB warehouse engine.) Its this mixed message that is at issue. DB2 is still the sacred cow. This basically says that IBM's positioning of IDS is mere lip service. This isn't to say that IDS isn't going to evolve and keep going. It means that IBM will continue to let IDS be the IT Industry's best kept sekret. And its sad. Thats the point of my post. IBM just tossed its credibility to the side for the sake of convenience. The TPC-C benchmark was done for the sake of IBM's hardware division. From a database perspective, TPC-C has been replaced with TPC-E. (Still very new). So someone within IM was asleep at the switch in allowing this benchmark to go through. That is, they didn't consider the ramifications. Two steps forward, one step back. _________________________________________________________________ How well do you know your celebrity gossip? http://originals.msn.com/thebigdebate?ocid=T002MSN03N0707A

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: pokeyman76@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: Why you can't trust IBM when it comes to committing to > Informix. > > Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:03:33 -0700 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > I agree. IBM is trying to exploit similar products making sure each > > has a chance for success. Unfortunately, Gumby's small brain can't > > think but in 1 dimension and therefore misses beauty of IBM's > > strategy. While I certainly can agree that IBM could promote IDS more > > and things are a bit screwed up when it comes to some of the sales > > support and collateral issues and develoment investment, IBM has done > > a pretty spectacular job in resurrecting IDS from the ashes and > > Janet's attempts to kill it. > > > > LOL! > Poor Pokeyman. Such an insult usually comes from someone who's deficient > somewhere else. (And when girls tell you that size doesn't matter, > they're lying just to keep you from feeling inadequate). > > And yet again, while Pokeymon tries to defend IBM and says we should be > "great full", and misses the point. > One minute IBM positions IDS as the OLTP engine, and DB2 as the DW > engine. Yet they turn around and release a TPC-C benchmark on DB2. So > what message is IBM sending to its customers? (On a side note, Informix > had XPS and had they kept it together, project arrowhead would have > successfully merged 7,8, and 9 in to one product. So IDS would have been > an excellent VERY LARGE DB warehouse engine.) > > Its this mixed message that is at issue. DB2 is still the sacred cow. > This basically says that IBM's positioning of IDS is mere lip service. > This isn't to say that IDS isn't going to evolve and keep going. It > means that IBM will continue to let IDS be the IT Industry's best kept > sekret. > > And its sad. > > Thats the point of my post. IBM just tossed its credibility to the side > for the sake of convenience. The TPC-C benchmark was done for the sake > of IBM's hardware division. From a database perspective, TPC-C has been > replaced with TPC-E. (Still very new). So someone within IM was asleep > at the switch in allowing this benchmark to go through. That is, they > didn't consider the ramifications. > > Two steps forward, one step back. > You can't really change anything at IBM. Any of the morons who are in a position to change anything have absolutely no motivation ( political or monetary ) to change the current situation. How do you change what is in gridlock? You have to go after their position and basically push them into it with fire and brimstone to get what you need. Only when you have successfully pushed these inept idiots into a corner will they actually move in the right direction. Which is why, for the most part, your points are excellent, but academic, until you can actually FORCE these vacuous IBM sycophants into action. It will most likely require higher management either firing these jerks or making it impossible for them to do anything else other than what is required. This will take time, IBM is very slow to respond to the market and move in a timely enough fashion. I suggest you spin this at a level higher than what the morons occupy and push down to get the action you seek. Obviously the IIUG has little ability either, since they don't represent anyone but the very morons who are keeping Informix down. It's all lip service at this point. Get the favor of someone these morons work for, then you will see results. Until then it's all just an exercise in futility. You'll end up talking to people here that can't fix the problem, and for the most part miss the point and get angry at YOU when all you've done is point out the problem.

Ian... your just a funny guy. You sound like you have a clue. In fact, I even tried to give you some credit. Unfortunately, your ignorance shines so brightly, I gotta wear shades man. You have no idea on how the products are positioned. You have no idea which products are doing which benchmarks other than those already published. Your probably didn't even know IDS was doing benchmarks again, did you! You have no clue what's going on in development. Your spew on this channel sounds more like sour grapes and venting. Did you get fired again? Maybe IDS is 2nd class to DB2. So what! IDS has always been 2nd class when it comes to marketing and since 1995, its been 2nd class (heck its been in last place) when it comes to strategy. I mean seriously... you think the Illustra deal was better than investing in XPS? Stop being so negative. Start focusing on the positive. Be a Polly Anna for once. It might do u some good! In fact, go watch some gumby and pokey reruns, they might lift your spirits. Meanwhile, will you just shut up and stop wasting people's time. Be constructive for once! On Mar 22, 7:49 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > From: pokeyma...@gmail.com > > Subject: Re: Why you can't trust IBM when it comes to committing to Informix. > > Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:03:33 -0700 > > To: informix-l...@iiug.org > > > I agree. IBM is trying to exploit similar products making sure each > > has a chance for success. Unfortunately, Gumby's small brain can't > > think but in 1 dimension and therefore misses beauty of IBM's > > strategy. While I certainly can agree that IBM could promote IDS more > > and things are a bit screwed up when it comes to some of the sales > > support and collateral issues and develoment investment, IBM has done > > a pretty spectacular job in resurrecting IDS from the ashes and > > Janet's attempts to kill it. > > LOL! > Poor Pokeyman. Such an insult usually comes from someone who's deficient somewhere else. (And when girls tell you that size doesn't matter, they're lying just to keep you from feeling inadequate). > > And yet again, while Pokeymon tries to defend IBM and says we should be "great full", and misses the point. > One minute IBM positions IDS as the OLTP engine, and DB2 as the DW engine. Yet they turn around and release a TPC-C benchmark on DB2. So what message is IBM sending to its customers? (On a side note, Informix had XPS and had they kept it together, project arrowhead > would have successfully merged 7,8, and 9 in to one product. So IDS > would have been an excellent VERY LARGE DB warehouse engine.) > > Its this mixed message that is at issue. DB2 is still the sacred cow. This basically says that IBM's positioning of IDS is mere lip service. > This isn't to say that IDS isn't going to evolve and keep going. It means that IBM will continue to let IDS be the IT Industry's best kept sekret. > > And its sad. > > Thats the point of my post. IBM just tossed its credibility to the side for the sake of convenience. The TPC-C benchmark was done for the sake of IBM's hardware division. From a database perspective, TPC-C has been replaced with TPC-E. (Still very new). So someone within IM was asleep at the switch in allowing this benchmark to go through. That is, they didn't consider the ramifications. > > Two steps forward, one step back. > > _________________________________________________________________ > How well do you know your celebrity gossip?http://originals.msn.com/thebigdebate?ocid=T002MSN03N0707A

> From: pokeyman76@yahoo.com > Subject: Re: Why you can't trust IBM when it comes to committing to Informix. > Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:01:52 -0700 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Ian... your just a funny guy. Yup. > You sound like you have a clue. In fact, I even tried to give you some > credit. Unfortunately, your ignorance shines so brightly, I gotta wear > shades man. Naw, no ignorance here. It seems you're wearing the those rose colored shades to hide the color of your eyes. Methinks you drank the blue cool-aid. > You have no idea on how the products are positioned. Really? That's actually the first statement you have that is correct. The fact is that nobody outside of IBM does. None of their S&D does. Show me an IM IT Specialist who can outline all of IBM IM's product line. Show me two, and I'll guarantee you that neither will get it right and will differ based on when they last looked at the product line. And that's the point of the post. IBM has made several statements on product positions. Yet, while they *say* IDS is their OLTP engine, they run a TPC-C benchmark using DB2. If IDS is their OLTP database, why do the benchmark on DB2? Wouldn't you use your stated OLTP engine for an OTLP benchmark? In other words IBM is creating their own FUD. Serge made a half hearted attempt which basically said the unspoken truth. IBM still considers DB2 their sacred cow. This would imply that the S&D team is still pushing DB2 regardless of IBM's "stated" positioning statement. Again, I'll ask this question: How many IM IT Specialists are there? How many IM IT Specialists are certified on IDS? (Any version) How many IM IT Specialists that are *NOT* heritage Informix employees *ARE* certified on IDS? How many IM IT Specialists that are *INFORMIX HERITAGE* employees and *ARE* certified on DB2? The numbers don't lie. What has Arvid done to reverse this trend? I've mentioned using the FLM's PBCs as incentive to increase the percentage of IDS certified IT Specialists and that hasn't happened. So forgive me for being *negative*. > You have no idea which products are doing which benchmarks other than > those already published. Your probably didn't even know IDS was doing > benchmarks again, did you! Ah... I've heard many things. But until the benchmark is published, its all just smoke and mirrors. And again it doesn't detract from the fact that IBM released an OLTP benchmark on DB2 when they state that their OLTP engine of choice is IDS. That's the latest gaff. IM shouldn't have done the benchmark at all unless it was on IDS. But then again, I imagine that they didn't have much of a choice... ;-) > You have no clue what's going on in development. Yup. I'm no longer under an NDA with IBM. And this is irrelevant. The point of the post is that IBM says one thing and then turns around and does another. This action is creating FUD surrounding IDS. > Your spew on this channel sounds more like sour grapes and venting. Oh gee willikers Mr. Wizard. Nothing escapes you. You're still just as sharp as a dull knife. Yes! EXACTLY. MY POST IS A VENT BECAUSE IBM IM HAS YET AGAIN SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT. I'll wager that the IDC "white paper" got their information from Bernie. ;-) (And I bet Jerry is rolling his eyes when he reads this. ;-) > Maybe IDS is 2nd class to DB2. So what! IDS has always been 2nd class > when it comes to marketing and since 1995, its been 2nd class (heck > its been in last place) when it comes to strategy. I mean seriously... > you think the Illustra deal was better than investing in XPS? You bring up two points. Yes, IDS has been IBM's bastard step child. Yes Peter G didn't know or care to know anything about Informix or IDS. He was a horse trader. Thats how he makes his money. There's more to the story about how the acquisition happened... You get a different part of the story when you talk to different people... ;-) Since '95 Informix was in a hole and lacked the creativity and aggressiveness to get themselves out of the hole. But this is a different issue. You had an accounting scandal that could have been handled differently except that Finocchio and Dexmier were not smurt enough to turn things around. Hell, I made a hobby out of embarrassing both to the stock analysts. I lost count of how many times Lloyd threatened to sue me. And I'm sure he was the one who was so sure I was "you screwed the pooch Dex", even though I told PG it wasn't me. (Now that's a funny story. There was one phone conversation I had with PG while standing outside of the Merchandise Mart... ;-) As to Informix's purchase of Illustra, yes it made more sense than just investing in XPS. (Funny you said Illustra and not the Ardent purchase... I was one of the people questioning that deal. And I voted no.) But the problem was that Phil White didn't realize the amount of effort it took to assimilate Illustra. Hence he cooked the books.(Ok, that was *one* of the reasons...) As to XPS, there was still investment going on. Illustra brought some incredible things to the table. Only Informix and now IBM just don't understand how to capitalize on this. Janet killed XPS because it competed with DB2. And I do remember a certain XPS customer who tried to switch to DB2... ;-) > Stop being so negative. Start focusing on the positive. Be a Polly > Anna for once. It might do u some good! Moi? Dude! I'm working in an Oracle shop. Do I think Oracle is a better product that IDS? Hardly. But I'm an App/Architect guy who goes down to the logical DBA role. Customers says "Can you do X?" and of course I can. So I support Oracle, IDS, etc ... I'm negative because like most in this group, I know that IDS is a hell of a product. So what if its the bastard step child to DB2 and IBM favors its inbred son? What hurts is that IBM, in their ineptness is still making things worse. But hey! That's par for the course. IBM's been in a slow decline since Lou last morphed IBM and has left the building.... (I'll address this further in another post.) > In fact, go watch some gumby and pokey reruns, they might lift your > spirits. > Meanwhile, will you just shut up and stop wasting people's time. Be > constructive for once! > Methinks that what I'm saying is actually striking a nerve. And that's the point. If IBM wants to shut me up, then they should actually stand behind their statements. Actions do speak louder than words and IBM's latest actions are an indication that they are merely playing lip service to the Informix crowd. But hey! What do I know? I'm working at an *ORACLE* shop. I'm outside of IBM and I'm not under any current NDA. So yeah, I've got a fairly good perspective of how the rest of the world views IBM, while at the same time, I've escaped from the blue pig. So yeah, what *do I know*? -G > On Mar 22, 7:49 pm, Ian Michael Gumby <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > From: pokeyma...@gmail.com > > > Subject: Re: Why you can't trust IBM when it comes to committing to Informix. > > > Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:03:33 -0700 > > > To: informix-l...@iiug.org > > > > > I agree. IBM is trying to exploit similar products making sure each > > > has a chance for success. Unfortunately, Gumby's small brain can't > > > think but in 1 dimension and therefore misses beauty

> From: pokeyman76@yahoo.com > Meanwhile, will you just shut up and stop wasting people's time. Be > constructive for once! > LOL! Did I strike a nerve? You want something constructive? Hmmm... 1) IBM needs to create a product position statement and act accordingly. (Meaning that if you say something! MEAN IT!) 2) Arvid should have the IM IT Specialists FLM contain a goal of increasing the number of IDS certified IT Specialists by x%. They can fill in the percentage themselves. And yes, IM exec management does have the ability to make sure something is in the PBCs. I believe the IT Specialists are in S&D but are cross-matrixed to the pillar that they support. The only question is can IM execs get the S&D division to change the PBC mid year? 3) IBM should do some BI analysis of the AAS system. 4) IM executive management should reach out to S&D and review the new IM product deals. Also should review the pipe in Siebel. 5) ??? Well there are some special projects IBM IM could do, but for some reason, they don't seem to want to reach out to either other pillars or to S&D. Thats just a start. Its pretty simple. There's more, but hey! What do I know? And I've already said this... ;-) Hint: A hell of a lot more than I post as Gumby. -G PS. Any of IBM IM going to JavaOne? ;-) There's something they could do if they're attending. Maybe Jerry K should drop me a line? _________________________________________________________________ Test your Star IQ http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR