Re: Splitting of tables on the basis of partnum
Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: neil.truby@ardenta.com > > Subject: Re: Splitting of tables on the basis of partnum > > Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:43:29 +0000 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > > I suppose you forgot to read the memo: > > > > SAP is no longer supporting Informix going forward. > > So SAP customers have only 2 options: > > > > >> 1) Stay on Informix and convert from SAP to Lawson or Infor > > > > As you later went on to say, the later versions of Lawson do not support > > Informix either. > > > > Well, Lawson is out of MN and I thought that IBM was trying to get > Lawson to backtrack on that statement. > I guess IBM either didn't try, or they tried and failed, or they are > still trying. One of the most frustrating periods of my professional career. On one hand, Lawson was singing the praises of IFMX 9. A few months or so later, Lawson dropped support for future releases of Informix. JWC
> From: jwcarlson1@yahoo.com.invalid > Subject: Re: Splitting of tables on the basis of partnum > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:06:15 -0400 > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > Well, Lawson is out of MN and I thought that IBM was trying to get > > Lawson to backtrack on that statement. > > I guess IBM either didn't try, or they tried and failed, or they are > > still trying. > > One of the most frustrating periods of my professional career. > > On one hand, Lawson was singing the praises of IFMX 9. > A few months or so later, Lawson dropped support for future releases of > Informix. > Blame Janet. Vendors take their direction from the product lead. JP tells them that while IBM is still selling and supporting IDS, that they're leading with DB2 and that's their platform of choice. What do you think they'll do? They'll support the database that they know IBM will be selling to net new customers. Informix? Sorry but maintenance costs become and issue. App vendors are supposed to be database agnostic hence they won't customize features to take advantage of database specific features like datablades, unless there is an overwhelming competitive advantage for them to do so. In terms of 'green marketing', IDS is a clear winner. Sure we don't have any benchmarks to support that statement because well IBM doesn't benchmark on IDS. Yet we know its pretty efficient if tuned properly so you can get more done with less. In terms of 'cloud computing', IDS again is a clear winner. Since you're not paying for the hardware or network bandwidth, but only for the resources you use, you're going to be using less resources, in terms of CPU, running Informix. But the real kicker is that Informix's lower maintenance costs and east of remote maintenance is going to make it easier to manage remotely. Add to this that the reason you're using a cloud is that you want high availability and uptime... Informix has the best replication story. If you don't replicate your database within your cloud, you're going to be at risk and it defeats the purpose. (Ooops! I guess I just spoiled two of the points that IBMer was going to make in his presentation. ) Just two key, very key, points as to why Informix in a cloud. But hey! I'm sorry I'm getting off topic. Maybe yet another question to be asked is what Inhi and Alyse are doing to counter all of the negative actions taken by Janet? But hey! What do I know? ;-) -G _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009
"Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gumby@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.453.1238498663.1831.informix-list@iiug.org... >> Blame Janet. >> Vendors take their direction from the product lead. >> JP tells them that while IBM is still selling and supporting IDS, that >> they're leading with DB2 and that's their platform of choice. I don't know why Mes Perna gets such a bad press. At least she had the , er-hem, balls to say what she thought and to do what she said. Now we have plenty of fine words from the relevant execs, signally not backed up actions. The former is more honest.