Re: Announcing: The IBM Customer Advisory Council for Informix

Chris, No flames today. I omitted your somewhat lengthy post to say that I think you had a lot of good things to say, but maybe your view that people are simply angry at IBM for what they may or may not be doing, or have done, may be a bit simplistic. It's not just being angry, it's the fact as Daniel suggested that families were, and are, affected by the stupidity of many who hid inside Informix, doing all the wrong things, and may be today hiding. In observing the post buy-out now for what, 5 years, it is easy to point the finger solely at IBM, but there is apparently more to this story. It appears that a lot of legacy Informix dead heads are still on board, perpetuating a lot of the problems. Only recently have I seen any movement that would indicate that some of these legacy dead heads are leaving or being asked to leave. If there is anger at IBM it would have to be for allowing these idiots to remain on in a capacity that has allowed them to prevent further product development in the market. If that is true, and there is a rotation of staff, maybe that will be helpful. But so much for speculation, it is important that the past not be forgotten to prevent it from happening again. If Informix as a product was worthless, we would not be having this conversation. It is precisely because it does have value that people are willing to fight for it. It is also important for IBM to recognize and admit their errors, to build credibility back into the developer community, who has been basically ignored since the buyout. Building the developer community is crucial to the whole process. 4GL was one of the main reasons Informix flourished in the market, not just because it was a great database. I am hopeful that the CAC will be successful, but also that the IIUG will take a moment to reorganize into a real ombudsman organization, clipping its ties to IBM in a way that allows them more credibility, and real power in the eyes of IBM and end-users. It is after all a user group. If the IIUG were doing its job, there would be no need for a CAC.

Double Echo said: > > In observing the post buy-out now for what, 5 years, it is > easy to point the finger solely at IBM, but there is > apparently more to this story. It appears that a lot of > legacy Informix dead heads are still on board, perpetuating > a lot of the problems. Only recently have I seen any > movement that would indicate that some of these legacy dead > heads are leaving or being asked to leave. If there is > anger at IBM it would have to be for allowing these idiots > to remain on in a capacity that has allowed them to prevent > further product development in the market. If that is true, > and there is a rotation of staff, maybe that will be helpful. I can't but help to feel that there is a bit of revisionism going on here: do you honestly believe that the lack of effort in marketing Informix by IBM stems from anyone other than Janet Perna, someone who had helped to write DB2 and had a lot of skin in that game? -- 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

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Double Echo said: >> In observing the post buy-out now for what, 5 years, it is >> easy to point the finger solely at IBM, but there is >> apparently more to this story. It appears that a lot of >> legacy Informix dead heads are still on board, perpetuating >> a lot of the problems. Only recently have I seen any >> movement that would indicate that some of these legacy dead >> heads are leaving or being asked to leave. If there is >> anger at IBM it would have to be for allowing these idiots >> to remain on in a capacity that has allowed them to prevent >> further product development in the market. If that is true, >> and there is a rotation of staff, maybe that will be helpful. > > I can't but help to feel that there is a bit of revisionism going on here: > do you honestly believe that the lack of effort in marketing Informix by > IBM stems from anyone other than Janet Perna, someone who had helped to > write DB2 and had a lot of skin in that game? > She could have not acted alone.

Double Echo said: > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> Double Echo said: >>> In observing the post buy-out now for what, 5 years, it is >>> easy to point the finger solely at IBM, but there is >>> apparently more to this story. It appears that a lot of >>> legacy Informix dead heads are still on board, perpetuating >>> a lot of the problems. Only recently have I seen any >>> movement that would indicate that some of these legacy dead >>> heads are leaving or being asked to leave. If there is >>> anger at IBM it would have to be for allowing these idiots >>> to remain on in a capacity that has allowed them to prevent >>> further product development in the market. If that is true, >>> and there is a rotation of staff, maybe that will be helpful. >> >> I can't but help to feel that there is a bit of revisionism going on >> here: >> do you honestly believe that the lack of effort in marketing Informix by >> IBM stems from anyone other than Janet Perna, someone who had helped to >> write DB2 and had a lot of skin in that game? >> > > She could have not acted alone. Yeah, whatever. You really think a grunt at any level carries any clout in IBM? -- 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

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Double Echo said: >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> Double Echo said: >>>> In observing the post buy-out now for what, 5 years, it is >>>> easy to point the finger solely at IBM, but there is >>>> apparently more to this story. It appears that a lot of >>>> legacy Informix dead heads are still on board, perpetuating >>>> a lot of the problems. Only recently have I seen any >>>> movement that would indicate that some of these legacy dead >>>> heads are leaving or being asked to leave. If there is >>>> anger at IBM it would have to be for allowing these idiots >>>> to remain on in a capacity that has allowed them to prevent >>>> further product development in the market. If that is true, >>>> and there is a rotation of staff, maybe that will be helpful. >>> I can't but help to feel that there is a bit of revisionism going on >>> here: >>> do you honestly believe that the lack of effort in marketing Informix by >>> IBM stems from anyone other than Janet Perna, someone who had helped to >>> write DB2 and had a lot of skin in that game? >>> >> She could have not acted alone. > > Yeah, whatever. You really think a grunt at any level carries any clout in > IBM? > Perhaps not as much as one would hope for. But what about the real skulduggery that engineered the buyout in the first place? These are the people I'd like to get training from. When the deals were struck and the body was being carved up, I can only get the impression that a large amount of the legacy cancer came along with the package. Instead of seizing the day, these individuals decided to sit on their hands, and do little. Some took the money and ran, but more tragic, many stayed, and sat on their hands. This is where we are today, and a lot of people don't understand that unless you bang a frying pan, or explode ordinance, nobody at Informix and now IBM, is going to listen, much less change anything. The CAC, while valuable on its own merits, is a signal that change is in the wind. It means a direct channel, wide open to customers, is available and allow input. But it does not guarantee anything will happen just because it exists. Change and 'repair' will only happen if enough people and companies take advantage of it. Those "grunts" stand a better chance today of making a difference if this CAC takes off and really gets things moving. IBM should take the opportunity to take the road less traveled and have this CAC distance itself from the IIUG as much as possible so that its success can be on its own merits and not because it leaned on a politically charged organization that in many ways has created more problems than it has solved. Had the IIUG been a bit more objective in its approach to Informix, and now IBM, it might have been able to accomplish a lot more, and made a stronger, more credible message for IBM to not only protect the product, but the brand as well.