Re: Note to Kate...

dcruncher4@aim.not.com wrote: > In article <gmcgcl$dkf$2@news.motzarella.org>, Wikking says... > >> The story is in the sales and the continued support for the product >> across a wide range of customers globally that manifests itself in a >> renewed and intense focus on the development of new features and >> functionality. Take it or leave it. > > the development of new features in informix is a living proof > that Informix is not a dead product for IBM. > Precisely that. Especially in these economic circumstances. -- }(:

On Feb 4, 11:01 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > dcrunch...@aim.not.com wrote: > > In article <gmcgcl$dk...@news.motzarella.org>, Wikking says... > > >> The story is in the sales and the continued support for the product > >> across a wide range of customers globally that manifests itself in a > >> renewed and intense focus on the development of new features and > >> functionality. Take it or leave it. > Wow. I heard a story that the moon is made of cheese and that the methane found on Mars was from the rotting remains of an ancient civilization. Just because you hear it, doesn't make it true. As to your numbers of IDS growing faster than the rest of the DB market, I think Marc posted numbers from IDS which call to question your numbers and assertion. If we look at Sun's information concerning the downloads of MySQL, I'd beg to differ that IDS is growing at a rate faster than the market. Research shows that IBM is losing market share. > > the development of new features in informix is a living proof > > that Informix is not a dead product for IBM. > > Precisely that. Especially in these economic circumstances. > Nobody said IDS was dead. Precisely to the point, Janet couldn't kill off IDS due to constraints placed upon her at the time of the acquisition. What Janet could do was provide incentives for the sales team to convert Informix customers to DB2, and convince partners to stop supporting IDS in their future releases of their applications as a way to force customers to convert to what she hoped would be DB2. The evidence of this is found in the Eagle Sales plans and of course in the decisions made by SAP, LAWSON, etc ... The point being made isn't if Informix is or is not a dead product. The point is that IBM has not provided the sales and marketing support for Informix and what little support provided is not on parity with the support given to DB2. That is a fact that you can not deny.

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 11:01 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> dcrunch...@aim.not.com wrote: >>> In article <gmcgcl$dk...@news.motzarella.org>, Wikking says... >>>> The story is in the sales and the continued support for the product >>>> across a wide range of customers globally that manifests itself in a >>>> renewed and intense focus on the development of new features and >>>> functionality. Take it or leave it. > Wow. > > I heard a story that the moon is made of cheese and that the methane > found on Mars was from the rotting remains of an ancient civilization. > Just because you hear it, doesn't make it true. You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its sales are? Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. -- }(:

"Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:gmcj4n$l69$1@news.motzarella.org... > You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its > sales are? I think his premise is that none of actually *know* what IDS's sales are, as IBM won't break them out separately from general software sales. > Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM > would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face > of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have > some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. To be fair, in the absence of sales data it's equally valid to speculate that they've spent the R&D money to try to arrest sales decline. Point is, none of us know, do we, because IBM is not serious about promoting Informix?

On Feb 4, 11:24 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > I heard a story that the moon is made of cheese and that the methane > > found on Mars was from the rotting remains of an ancient civilization. > > Just because you hear it, doesn't make it true. > > You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its > sales are? Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM > would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face > of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have > some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. > Silly git, not at all. All I am saying is that we hear rumors but that they can't be substantiated. We don't know what IBM spends on R&D in terms of product development for *any* product. We don't know the license or revenue numbers from IBM on either DB2 on z/OS, DB2 distributed, or IDS. IBM doesn't break out those numbers for public consumption. We can take a slide from Jerry Keesee's presentation and see a statistic which is taken out of context and unless it is placed in context, we don't get anything meaning other than IBM saying that Informix has consistently experienced double digit growth. You make an assertion that IDS's rate of adoption is growing at a rate faster than the database market is growing. Mark T. posted IDC numbers which showed a decline in IBM's overall market share. Which numbers are you going to believe? It seems that the only one being delusional and has an agenda is yourself. Now go to the washroom and clean up that brown ring around you neck! Going back on topic, IBM hasn't made any visible effort in sales/ marketing that would bring parity to the dollars spend on DB2 distributed and the dollars spend on IDS. (In terms of marketing) I've shouted for an IDS benchmark, not because I believe it to be the solution to all of IBM's Informix marketing issues, but that it would show a commitment around IDS that is currently lacking. IBM continues to do benchmarks on DB2, yet these OLTP benchmarks on DB2 discredit Ambush's letter and 'go to market' positioning statement. It is because of these actions, one has to question the sincerity of IBM and their commitment to Informix. Its a shame that the call was cut short and there wasn't any more Q&A. I know I had some zingers to ask Jerry. ;-) -G

On Feb 4, 12:51 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:gmcj4n$l69$1@news.motzarella.org... > > > You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its > > sales are? > > I think his premise is that none of actually *know* what IDS's sales are, as > IBM won't break them out separately from general software sales. > Yes, spot on. Statistics taken out of context are misleading. (Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics). What we really want to know is the following: Number of licenses, % of license growth (yr/yr, qtr/qtr) % net new customer growth, again year over year, and quarter over quarter. (These numbers for IDS, DB2 LUW, DB2 zOS) This will put things in to better perspective. But unless you are Steve Mills, Ambuj Goyal, or Jerry Keesee, you're not going to see the real numbers and you won't have an accurate understanding of the market and a true sense of the growth. Suppose Wally Mart opens 100 new stores. That grows the license base by 100, yet it has less significance than if it were 100 net new customers. > > Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM > > would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face > > of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have > > some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. > > To be fair, in the absence of sales data it's equally valid to speculate > that they've spent the R&D money to try to arrest sales decline. > Point is, none of us know, do we, because IBM is not serious about promoting > Informix? Again, spot on. I don't doubt that Informix is growing in revenue and customer base. Just how much is an unknown. I do know that if what Jerry said about internal efforts to educate S&D are in place, then they are ineffective and should be changed. Lets face it, were there adequate marketing and sales collateral, you'd have seen more growth. Were IBM serious about IDS, then they would have put some skin in the game.

Captain Pedantic wrote: > > "Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:gmcj4n$l69$1@news.motzarella.org... > >> You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its >> sales are? > > I think his premise is that none of actually *know* what IDS's sales > are, as IBM won't break them out separately from general software sales. > >> Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM >> would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face >> of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have >> some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. > > To be fair, in the absence of sales data it's equally valid to speculate > that they've spent the R&D money to try to arrest sales decline. > Point is, none of us know, do we, because IBM is not serious about > promoting Informix? So when Ambuj Goyal takes time to attend an IIUG meeting you think that was actually a body-double? -- }(:

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 11:24 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> I heard a story that the moon is made of cheese and that the methane >>> found on Mars was from the rotting remains of an ancient civilization. >>> Just because you hear it, doesn't make it true. >> You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its >> sales are? Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM >> would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face >> of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have >> some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. >> > > Silly git, not at all. > > All I am saying is that we hear rumors but that they can't be > substantiated. Ah no. There you go. Foolish fellow. They cannot be substantiated to YOU because you want information that is company confidential and are trolling the newsgroup looking for it and throwing tantrums, ad hominems and playing silly pop-psy games when you can't get what you want. You either accept that the R&D $$$ spent on new features and functionality are a direct result of good IDS sales performance or you don't. You have no good reason for the latter though unless we accept that your "magical thinking" is valid. My view is that you have some axe to grind that you're not sharing with this group and are a silly naysayer for reasons of your own that are not founded in logic. -- }(:

On Feb 4, 9:42 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > On Feb 4, 11:24 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> I heard a story that the moon is made of cheese and that the methane > >>> found on Mars was from the rotting remains of an ancient civilization. > >>> Just because you hear it, doesn't make it true. > >> You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its > >> sales are? Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM > >> would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face > >> of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have > >> some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. > > > Silly git, not at all. > > > All I am saying is that we hear rumors but that they can't be > > substantiated. > > Ah no. There you go. Foolish fellow. They cannot be substantiated to > YOU because you want information that is company confidential and are > trolling the newsgroup looking for it and throwing tantrums, ad > hominems and playing silly pop-psy games when you can't get what you want. > > You either accept that the R&D $$$ spent on new features and > functionality are a direct result of good IDS sales performance or you > don't. You have no good reason for the latter though unless we accept > that your "magical thinking" is valid. My view is that you have some > axe to grind that you're not sharing with this group and are a silly > naysayer for reasons of your own that are not founded in logic. > > -- > > }(: We shouldn't mix things up. Didn't IDS achieve those probably good sales numbers because of the large investment in IDS 11 and 11.5 ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the investment decision for IDS 11 has been made before the sales grew up and not vice versa. And it has probably been made by IBM to stop the crumble of the Informix customer base that could not been compensated by DB2.

eric@herber-consulting.de wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:42 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>> On Feb 4, 11:24 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> I heard a story that the moon is made of cheese and that the methane >>>>> found on Mars was from the rotting remains of an ancient civilization. >>>>> Just because you hear it, doesn't make it true. >>>> You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its >>>> sales are? Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM >>>> would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face >>>> of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have >>>> some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. >>> Silly git, not at all. >>> All I am saying is that we hear rumors but that they can't be >>> substantiated. >> Ah no. There you go. Foolish fellow. They cannot be substantiated to >> YOU because you want information that is company confidential and are >> trolling the newsgroup looking for it and throwing tantrums, ad >> hominems and playing silly pop-psy games when you can't get what you want. >> >> You either accept that the R&D $$$ spent on new features and >> functionality are a direct result of good IDS sales performance or you >> don't. You have no good reason for the latter though unless we accept >> that your "magical thinking" is valid. My view is that you have some >> axe to grind that you're not sharing with this group and are a silly >> naysayer for reasons of your own that are not founded in logic. >> >> -- >> >> }(: > > We shouldn't mix things up. > > Didn't IDS achieve those probably good sales numbers because of the > large investment in > IDS 11 and 11.5 ? Not entirely. The new features WERE the kicker for SOME legacy customers that were wondering what to do after IDS 9 and 10 which already had reasonable sales, but there was no dead end to maintenance and if the product was doing the job at a lot less TCO than others, customers had little to gain by moving. Janet Perna was also on audio stating that Informix was here to stay. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the investment decision for IDS > 11 has been made > before the sales grew up and not vice versa. And it has probably been > made by IBM > to stop the crumble of the Informix customer base that could not been > compensated > by DB2. No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases and lots of new customers that hear about the TCO, reliability, functionality and are buying in. -- }(:

On Feb 4, 10:08 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > e...@herber-consulting.de wrote: > > On Feb 4, 9:42 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > >>> On Feb 4, 11:24 am, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> I heard a story that the moon is made of cheese and that the methane > >>>>> found on Mars was from the rotting remains of an ancient civilization. > >>>>> Just because you hear it, doesn't make it true. > >>>> You're suggesting Informix is some sort of vapourware? Or that its > >>>> sales are? Your premise is based on some sort of strawman that IBM > >>>> would still have spent a lot of money on IDS development in the face > >>>> of declining sales revenue? That is delusional thinking, or, you have > >>>> some hidden agenda that you're not sharing with all of us here. > >>> Silly git, not at all. > >>> All I am saying is that we hear rumors but that they can't be > >>> substantiated. > >> Ah no. There you go. Foolish fellow. They cannot be substantiated to > >> YOU because you want information that is company confidential and are > >> trolling the newsgroup looking for it and throwing tantrums, ad > >> hominems and playing silly pop-psy games when you can't get what you want. > > >> You either accept that the R&D $$$ spent on new features and > >> functionality are a direct result of good IDS sales performance or you > >> don't. You have no good reason for the latter though unless we accept > >> that your "magical thinking" is valid. My view is that you have some > >> axe to grind that you're not sharing with this group and are a silly > >> naysayer for reasons of your own that are not founded in logic. > > >> -- > > >> }(: > > > We shouldn't mix things up. > > > Didn't IDS achieve those probably good sales numbers because of the > > large investment in > > IDS 11 and 11.5 ? > > Not entirely. The new features WERE the kicker for SOME legacy > customers that were wondering what to do after IDS 9 and 10 which > already had reasonable sales, but there was no dead end to maintenance > and if the product was doing the job at a lot less TCO than others, > customers had little to gain by moving. Janet Perna was also on audio > stating that Informix was here to stay. > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the investment decision for IDS > > 11 has been made > > before the sales grew up and not vice versa. And it has probably been > > made by IBM > > to stop the crumble of the Informix customer base that could not been > > compensated > > by DB2. > > No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to > grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue > investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could > no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what > IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases and lots of new > customers that hear about the TCO, reliability, functionality and are > buying in. > > -- > > }(: Hmm, I wonder if you see those things solely thru your pink ibm eyeglasses. At least for the german-speaking market as well as the UK and France I can't see those "lots of new customers". Even the large-scale growth in existing installbases is more due the renewal of licenses which is a good thing, as it binds the customer to IDS for the existing systems, but it doesn't automatically mean that customers are considering IDS for new projects. IDS will only make it's way to new customers, if IBM re-invests the earned IDS money and is willing to a perfom a serious marketing/advertising for the product. Sophisticated technology is one side of the coin, a serious marketing/advertising strategy the other. Only if both sides are equally treated, an active ecosystem is able to evolve. based on IDS.

On Feb 4, 2:42 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Silly git, not at all. > > > All I am saying is that we hear rumors but that they can't be > > substantiated. > > Ah no. There you go. Foolish fellow. They cannot be substantiated to > YOU because you want information that is company confidential and are > trolling the newsgroup looking for it and throwing tantrums, ad > hominems and playing silly pop-psy games when you can't get what you want. > I'm not the one making assumptions or taking what has been said by IBM at face value. I have heard rumors from reliable sources as to the numbers. But since these numbers are not released, we have no way of verifying them. Under RuleFD, if released to some, they would have to be released to all. IBM doesn't break down revenue past the pillar because they argue that individual product revenues are no longer relevant or a reflection on the fiscal well being of IBM as a whole. Any numbers in Jerry Keesee's presentation hold no value because they are not put in any relevant context. There's no game here. The issue of benchmarking, which was in part, the start of this thread is relevant because the lack of an IDS benchmark while there exist and continues to exist TPC-C DB2 benchmarking efforts calls to question the veracity of IBM's former 'go to market statement'. In fact the lack of IDS benchmarking in light of the DB2 benchmarking calls to question the letter by Ambush to the Informix community. How credible is IBM when they made the statement that IDS is their platform of choice for OLTP and DB2 was their platform of choice for Datawarehousing? IBM execs made that statement. I merely point out that their actions, or rather inaction, calls to question their credibility. I just want straight answers. > You either accept that the R&D $$$ spent on new features and > functionality are a direct result of good IDS sales performance or you > don't. You have no good reason for the latter though unless we accept > that your "magical thinking" is valid. My view is that you have some > axe to grind that you're not sharing with this group and are a silly > naysayer for reasons of your own that are not founded in logic. > I fail to see how you can draw any correlation between dollar amounts spent on R&D and IDS sales performance. Neither number is public and of course irrelevant. The success of IDS is mainly due to the Informix community. If we look back at Jerry Keesee's recent presentation, lets take a look at some of their 'wins'. The US Military win that Jerry mentioned. Could it be the same one mentioned earlier in OTC's blog? If so, it wasn't really a win at all. The US Army had to extend their IDS licenses because they did not believe that they could finish the Oracle migration prior to the expiration of their existing maintenance contract. (Note to OTC... if you're going to put a reference in your blog, read it first. ;-) Here's the actual 'article': http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2074070/ Just to save you the time of reading, here's the relevant quote: "Informix is used in the current version of DMLSS that is soon to be replaced and will no longer require Informix. Rollout of the new DMLSS version with ORACLE is scheduled over 36 months and begins in December 2008. However, if there are any issues with service networking architecture with ORACLE that are not resolved the deployment schedule could be delayed beyond 36 months." So much for that win. I spoke to someone in the EU. It seems that while the bank mentioned in the win against Oracle RAC did ultimately choose Informix 11.x, one has to ask if there was more to this story? Rumor has it that the existing system was on Informix 9.x and that IBM sales botched it and opened the door to Oracle. I guess if IBM Germany Sales were taking care of business, this 'win' would have been a snooze of an upgrade from 9 to 11 that no one would care about. So I guess when I see something in an IBM presentation, one where I'm not forced to sign an NDA, I'm going to take what is said with a grain of salt. One has to ask why you, a sock puppet with a brown neck is here? Not even 48 hours old and you're preaching from the IBM pulpit. ;-) -G

"Wikking" <Wik.King!@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:gmd091$52c$1@news.motzarella.org... > No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to > grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue > investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could > no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what > IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases ... Yes! Yes! YES!! We are *all* agreed!! > ... and lots of new customers ... Oh. I'll get my coat then ...

On Feb 4, 3:08 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to > grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue > investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could > no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what > IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases and lots of new > customers that hear about the TCO, reliability, functionality and are > buying in. > SNORT! I guess this part of IBM's new marketing campaign! Hey! I know, lets ask NJ about Tellabs' SAP/Informix installation. Oh snap! My bad. They were one of the handful of SAP customers who actually migrated from Informix to DB2, and of course NJ's not at Tellabs anymore. (I believe that most of the SAP customers moved to Oracle. But I don't know. I'd suspect that Mark Townsend the Oracle competitive wonk would know more...) And what about ATG? Lawson? PeopleSoft? All of these third party app vendors who told their customers that they would no longer be supporting IDS in future releases. (Did some of them change their minds? Maybe. But not SAP...) With respect to FUD, IBM is doing a fine job on their own in creating FUD. Got to hand it to IBM. Sending a tosser out to do a man's job. But hey! What do I know? Its not like I hadn't pointed out how IBM can improve things for the past 3 years. Oh wait. I have.... :-) -G

On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:gmd091$52c$1@news.motzarella.org... > > > No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to > > grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue > > investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could > > no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what > > IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases ... > > Yes!  Yes!  YES!!  We are *all* agreed!! > > > ...  and lots of new customers ... > > Oh. > I'll get my coat then ... I think that the poor boy had had too much of the 'blue punch'.

On Feb 4, 4:31 pm, "thom.wan...@yahoo.co.uk" <wanker.tho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >news:gmd091$52c$1@news.motzarella.org... > > > > No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to > > > grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue > > > investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could > > > no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what > > > IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases ... > > > Yes!  Yes!  YES!!  We are *all* agreed!! > > > > ...  and lots of new customers ... > > > Oh. > > I'll get my coat then ... > > I think that the poor boy had had too much of the 'blue punch'. Well, I think he must be new to IBM and is probably trying to show his creativity. No one is questioning the loyalty of the Informix customer. Were it not for loyal customers, then Janet would still be at IBM and we'd all be talking about how great DB2 is, or I should say, how great Oracle is. (Hint: When you open the door to migrate to a different platform, you're opening the door to *all* platforms and you're not going to be in the driver's seat for long.) What I and others are questioning is the lack of commitment from IBM in terms of marketing and sales support. -G

"Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gumby@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fc847c86-1537-4223-81f8-ae57bf4a8d31@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... (Hint: When you open the door to migrate to a different platform, you're opening the door to *all* platforms and you're not going to be in the driver's seat for long.) Absolutely spot on. I think IBM was slow to realise this. By getting the sales team to promote a "migrate to DB2 message" IBM shot itself in the foot. Because the customers decided to look at DB2 *and beyond*. And overwhelmingly they left IBM for Oracle and SQL Server. >> What I and others are questioning is the lack of commitment from IBM in >> terms of marketing and sales support. Yup

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 2:42 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> Silly git, not at all. >>> All I am saying is that we hear rumors but that they can't be >>> substantiated. >> Ah no. There you go. Foolish fellow. They cannot be substantiated to >> YOU because you want information that is company confidential and are >> trolling the newsgroup looking for it and throwing tantrums, ad >> hominems and playing silly pop-psy games when you can't get what you want. >> > > I'm not the one making assumptions or taking what has been said by IBM > at face value. > I have heard rumors from reliable sources as to the numbers. But since > these numbers are not released, we have no way of verifying them. > Under RuleFD, if released to some, they would have to be released to > all. IBM doesn't break down revenue past the pillar because they argue > that individual product revenues are no longer relevant or a > reflection on the fiscal well being of IBM as a whole. Any numbers in > Jerry Keesee's presentation hold no value because they are not put in > any relevant context. > > There's no game here. > > The issue of benchmarking, which was in part, the start of this thread > is relevant because the lack of an IDS benchmark while there exist and > continues to exist TPC-C DB2 benchmarking efforts calls to question > the veracity of IBM's former 'go to market statement'. In fact the > lack of IDS benchmarking in light of the DB2 benchmarking calls to > question the letter by Ambush to the Informix community. How credible > is IBM when they made the statement that IDS is their platform of > choice for OLTP and DB2 was their platform of choice for > Datawarehousing? > > IBM execs made that statement. I merely point out that their actions, > or rather inaction, calls to question their credibility. > > I just want straight answers. > >> You either accept that the R&D $$$ spent on new features and >> functionality are a direct result of good IDS sales performance or you >> don't. You have no good reason for the latter though unless we accept >> that your "magical thinking" is valid. My view is that you have some >> axe to grind that you're not sharing with this group and are a silly >> naysayer for reasons of your own that are not founded in logic. >> > > I fail to see how you can draw any correlation between dollar amounts > spent on R&D and IDS sales performance. > Neither number is public and of course irrelevant. > > The success of IDS is mainly due to the Informix community. > > If we look back at Jerry Keesee's recent presentation, lets take a > look at some of their 'wins'. > The US Military win that Jerry mentioned. Could it be the same one > mentioned earlier in OTC's blog? If so, it wasn't really a win at all. > The US Army had to extend their IDS licenses because they did not > believe that they could finish the Oracle migration prior to the > expiration of their existing maintenance contract. (Note to OTC... if > you're going to put a reference in your blog, read it first. ;-) > Here's the actual 'article': > http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2074070/ > > Just to save you the time of reading, here's the relevant quote: > "Informix is used in the current version of DMLSS that is soon to be > replaced and will no longer require Informix. Rollout of the new DMLSS > version with ORACLE is scheduled over 36 months and begins in December > 2008. However, if there are any issues with service networking > architecture with ORACLE that are not resolved the deployment schedule > could be delayed beyond 36 months." > > So much for that win. > > I spoke to someone in the EU. It seems that while the bank mentioned > in the win against Oracle RAC did ultimately choose Informix 11.x, one > has to ask if there was more to this story? Rumor has it that the > existing system was on Informix 9.x and that IBM sales botched it and > opened the door to Oracle. I guess if IBM Germany Sales were taking > care of business, this 'win' would have been a snooze of an upgrade > from 9 to 11 that no one would care about. > > So I guess when I see something in an IBM presentation, one where I'm > not forced to sign an NDA, I'm going to take what is said with a grain > of salt. > > One has to ask why you, a sock puppet with a brown neck is here? Not > even 48 hours old and you're preaching from the IBM pulpit. ;-) So what's your real gripe against IDS and IBM? -- }(:

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 3:08 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to >> grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue >> investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could >> no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what >> IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases and lots of new >> customers that hear about the TCO, reliability, functionality and are >> buying in. >> > > SNORT! So what's your real gripe against IDS and IBM? You seem to have a lot of baggage. Did they fire you? Or is it simply that you are hoping for loads of Oracle or Microsoft business out of the IDS installbase? -- }(:

thom.wanker@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:gmd091$52c$1@news.motzarella.org... >> >>> No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to >>> grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue >>> investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could >>> no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what >>> IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases ... >> Yes! Yes! YES!! We are *all* agreed!! >> >>> ... and lots of new customers ... >> Oh. >> I'll get my coat then ... > > I think that the poor boy had had too much of the 'blue punch'. Think whatever you like. Fact is, the product is here to stay and its growth is outperforming other rdbms systems. -- }(:

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 4:31 pm, "thom.wan...@yahoo.co.uk" > <wanker.tho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:gmd091$52c$1@news.motzarella.org... >>>> No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to >>>> grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue >>>> investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could >>>> no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what >>>> IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases ... >>> Yes! Yes! YES!! We are *all* agreed!! >>>> ... and lots of new customers ... >>> Oh. >>> I'll get my coat then ... >> I think that the poor boy had had too much of the 'blue punch'. > > Well, I think he must be new to IBM and is probably trying to show his > creativity. So come back to your baggage about IDS and IBM. Are you an ex-employee that got let go? -- }(:

On Feb 4, 5:31 pm, Wankking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > So what's your real gripe against IDS and IBM? > > -- > So are you the king of wanks? Isn't it obvious that my gripe is the lack of sales and marketing support? For someone who's supposed to be in the UK, its past your bed time. Maybe if you got more sleep and washed that brown ring around you neck, you might learn something. -G

Captain Pedantic wrote: > "Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gumby@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:fc847c86-1537-4223-81f8-ae57bf4a8d31@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > (Hint: When you open the door to migrate to a different platform, > you're opening the door to *all* platforms and you're not going to be > in the driver's seat for long.) Well, that was just some reps trying to move money from one installbase pillar to another and get compensated for it for no new net sum gain. They screwed up because they were too thick to realise that when you open the door to a migration all the other vendors get to play too and what with the FUD going around, they managed to stampede some customers who now deeply regret being stampeded like a pack of lemmings. > > Absolutely spot on. I think IBM was slow to realise this. By getting > the sales team to promote a "migrate to DB2 message" IBM shot itself in > the foot. Because the customers decided to look at DB2 *and beyond*. > And overwhelmingly they left IBM for Oracle and SQL Server. As did some posting here and hoping to get more business by continuing to spread FUD. > >>> What I and others are questioning is the lack of commitment from IBM >>> in terms of marketing and sales support. So what other IBM IM product has a marketing profile that you think IDS should have? No magical thinking please. Just remember IDS is not on the Mainframes in any significant way and thats still where a lot of users are and the money is. -- }(:

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 5:31 pm, Wankking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> So what's your real gripe against IDS and IBM? >> >> -- >> > So are you the king of wanks? > > Isn't it obvious that my gripe is the lack of sales and marketing > support? No, there's more. Do share. > > For someone who's supposed to be in the UK, its past your bed time. > Maybe if you got more sleep and washed that brown ring around you > neck, you might learn something. You can think what you like. I have repeated the question and you are now trying to duck it by asking questions in return instead of answering directly. -- }(:

On Feb 4, 5:36 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > On Feb 4, 4:31 pm, "thom.wan...@yahoo.co.uk" > > <wanker.tho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >>> "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >>>news:gmd091$52c$1@news.motzarella.org... > >>>> No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to > >>>> grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue > >>>> investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could > >>>> no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what > >>>> IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases ... > >>> Yes!  Yes!  YES!!  We are *all* agreed!! > >>>> ...  and lots of new customers ... > >>> Oh. > >>> I'll get my coat then ... > >> I think that the poor boy had had too much of the 'blue punch'. > > > Well, I think he must be new to IBM and is probably trying to show his > > creativity. > > So come back to your baggage about IDS and IBM. Are you an ex-employee > that got let go? > let go? Try escaped. ;-) But let me guess. You're still going to go with the 'Gumby's got a grudge line of reasoning in an effort to discredit me.' ;-) Oh please keep going. You're more fun that those other sock puppets! -G

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 5:36 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >>> On Feb 4, 4:31 pm, "thom.wan...@yahoo.co.uk" >>> <wanker.tho...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On Feb 4, 4:05 pm, "Captain Pedantic" <theharlequi...@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> "Wikking" <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>> news:gmd091$52c$1@news.motzarella.org... >>>>>> No there remained a significant loyal customer base that continued to >>>>>> grow. The new features merely solidified their position to continue >>>>>> investing in IDS. Their anxious management and the FUD-speakers could >>>>>> no longer make a plausible case for migrating away any longer. So what >>>>>> IDS has is large-scale growth in existing installbases ... >>>>> Yes! Yes! YES!! We are *all* agreed!! >>>>>> ... and lots of new customers ... >>>>> Oh. >>>>> I'll get my coat then ... >>>> I think that the poor boy had had too much of the 'blue punch'. >>> Well, I think he must be new to IBM and is probably trying to show his >>> creativity. >> So come back to your baggage about IDS and IBM. Are you an ex-employee >> that got let go? >> > > let go? > > Try escaped. ;-) Ah. > > But let me guess. You're still going to go with the 'Gumby's got a > grudge line of reasoning in an effort to discredit me.' ;-) Certainly your tone, posts and the sarkie way you come across provides circumstantial evidence that that is the case. > > Oh please keep going. You're more fun that those other sock puppets! No need. You answered the question. -- }(:

On Feb 4, 5:43 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Captain Pedantic wrote: > > "Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:fc847c86-1537-4223-81f8-ae57bf4a8d31@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > (Hint: When you open the door to migrate to a different platform, > > you're opening the door to *all* platforms and you're not going to be > > in the driver's seat for long.) > > Well, that was just some reps trying to move money from one > installbase pillar to another and get compensated for it for no new > net sum gain. They screwed up because they were too thick to realise > that when you open the door to a migration all the other vendors get > to play too and what with the FUD going around, they managed to > stampede some customers who now deeply regret being stampeded like a > pack of lemmings. > > Ah now the king of wanking is showing his true colors.... Calling the IBM S&D team 'too thick'? Say it ain't so? It sounds like a little light bulb is starting to flicker on in that large empty space between his ears. You wonder why people here don't take what IBMers say at face value, yet you yourself blather away admitting that the problem is with IBM. Who do you think is responsible for the S&D compensation with respect to Information Management products? Today its Ambuj. but back then it was Janet Perna. I bet that if I dig through my files, I can find a copy of the Eagle sales plan(s). If you bothered to lurk before taking a break between wanks, you'd understand that any 'FUD' that we're talking about was generated by IBM itself. Customers don't regret making their migration from one product to another. Again, I'll be generous and while you're busy being the king of wankers, wanking away, ponder on this little gem. For over 90% of the applications which require a relational database to persist their objects, any of the tier 1 databases are more than capable of completing this task. While there are differences between the different databases, one can always compensate with hardware. I wonder if Tellabs is unhappy because they were forced to migrate their SAP instance from Informix to DB2. I'd ask NJ, but she left the building for greener pastures. Of course Tellabs also runs Oracle. Oh and btw, Tellabs was one of the handful of customers who moved from Informix to DB2. Most moved to Oracle.... (Gee I wonder who talked to SAP and convinced them *not* to support IDS... can you say JP? [if the rumors are true]) > > > Absolutely spot on.  I think IBM was slow to realise this.  By getting > > the sales team to promote a "migrate to DB2 message" IBM shot itself in > > the foot.  Because the customers decided to look at DB2 *and beyond*. > > And overwhelmingly they left IBM for Oracle and SQL Server. > > As did some posting here and hoping to get more business by continuing > to spread FUD. > Really? The only competitive wonk is Mark. Unlike you he's a wonk, not a silly wanker. ;-) No one here is posting FUD, unless you count IBM... :-) > > >>> What I and others are questioning is the lack of commitment from IBM > >>> in terms of marketing and sales support. > > So what other IBM IM product has a marketing profile that you think > IDS should have? No magical thinking please. Just remember IDS is not > on the Mainframes in any significant way and thats still where a lot > of users are and the money is. > IDS on z/OS? Naw. Sorry. zLinux? Outch. Now that's got to hurt. Yet again the king of wankers has a brown neck. I'm just wondering if he's suffering from hypoxia? Junior, here's a free clue. IBM does track their MIPS. Ambuj and Steve Mills know just how many MIPS are licensed for IMS and DB2 on the big iron. Care to guess the trend? And no its not going up. Here in Chicago, I'm seeing two major IBM DB2 z accounts migrate off the mainframe. Oh and no, its not DB2 on LUW, but both are going to SQLServer. So yeah. The mainframe is 'king' and where the money is. For now. But moving forward, much faster than a glacial meltdown, customers are moving away from DB2 z. And its not to DB2 LUW and since the S&D sales critters are 'too thick' to mention IDS, I guess its off to a competitor. Thank you for playing, Don Pardo, what parting gifts do we have for our constant? -G

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Feb 4, 5:43 pm, Wikking <Wik.Ki...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Captain Pedantic wrote: >>> "Ian Michael Gumby" <im_gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fc847c86-1537-4223-81f8-ae57bf4a8d31@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> (Hint: When you open the door to migrate to a different platform, >>> you're opening the door to *all* platforms and you're not going to be >>> in the driver's seat for long.) >> Well, that was just some reps trying to move money from one >> installbase pillar to another and get compensated for it for no new >> net sum gain. They screwed up because they were too thick to realise >> that when you open the door to a migration all the other vendors get >> to play too and what with the FUD going around, they managed to >> stampede some customers who now deeply regret being stampeded like a >> pack of lemmings. >> >> > Ah now the king of wanking is showing his true colors.... > > Calling the IBM S&D team 'too thick'? Say it ain't so? > > It sounds like a little light bulb is starting to flicker on in that > large empty space between his ears. > > You wonder why people here don't take what IBMers say at face value, > yet you yourself blather away admitting that the problem is with IBM. > Who do you think is responsible for the S&D compensation with respect > to Information Management products? Today its Ambuj. but back then it > was Janet Perna. I bet that if I dig through my files, I can find a > copy of the Eagle sales plan(s). > > If you bothered to lurk before taking a break between wanks, you'd > understand that any 'FUD' that we're talking about was generated by > IBM itself. > > Customers don't regret making their migration from one product to > another. > > Again, I'll be generous and while you're busy being the king of > wankers, wanking away, ponder on this little gem. > For over 90% of the applications which require a relational database > to persist their objects, any of the tier 1 databases are more than > capable of completing this task. While there are differences between > the different databases, one can always compensate with hardware. > > I wonder if Tellabs is unhappy because they were forced to migrate > their SAP instance from Informix to DB2. I'd ask NJ, but she left the > building for greener pastures. Of course Tellabs also runs Oracle. Oh > and btw, Tellabs was one of the handful of customers who moved from > Informix to DB2. Most moved to Oracle.... (Gee I wonder who talked to > SAP and convinced them *not* to support IDS... can you say JP? [if the > rumors are true]) > >>> Absolutely spot on. I think IBM was slow to realise this. By getting >>> the sales team to promote a "migrate to DB2 message" IBM shot itself in >>> the foot. Because the customers decided to look at DB2 *and beyond*. >>> And overwhelmingly they left IBM for Oracle and SQL Server. >> As did some posting here and hoping to get more business by continuing >> to spread FUD. >> > Really? The only competitive wonk is Mark. Unlike you he's a wonk, not > a silly wanker. ;-) > > No one here is posting FUD, unless you count IBM... :-) > >>>>> What I and others are questioning is the lack of commitment from IBM >>>>> in terms of marketing and sales support. >> So what other IBM IM product has a marketing profile that you think >> IDS should have? No magical thinking please. Just remember IDS is not >> on the Mainframes in any significant way and thats still where a lot >> of users are and the money is. >> > IDS on z/OS? Naw. Sorry. zLinux? Outch. Now that's got to hurt. > > Yet again the king of wankers has a brown neck. I'm just wondering if > he's suffering from hypoxia? > > Junior, here's a free clue. > IBM does track their MIPS. > Ambuj and Steve Mills know just how many MIPS are licensed for IMS and > DB2 on the big iron. > Care to guess the trend? And no its not going up. > > Here in Chicago, I'm seeing two major IBM DB2 z accounts migrate off > the mainframe. Oh and no, its not DB2 on LUW, but both are going to > SQLServer. So yeah. The mainframe is 'king' and where the money is. > For now. But moving forward, much faster than a glacial meltdown, > customers are moving away from DB2 z. And its not to DB2 LUW and since > the S&D sales critters are 'too thick' to mention IDS, I guess its off > to a competitor. > > Thank you for playing, Don Pardo, what parting gifts do we have for > our constant? You really don't have enough substance to respond to. I know that might astound you, but there's no real insight there. -- }(: