Re: Future of Informix

Billy Wheeler wrote: > > On 15 Apr 97 at 22:17, a highly annoyed Tim Schaefer wrote: > > > It all sounds so wonderful. > > > > Let's attempt to build pent up demand for yet another overpriced > > highly inaccessable product that will be hard to support because > > there won't be anybody in the human-resource pool/market to find > > to support it, because the only way they can get their hands on > > it is to beg borrow or steal it--or be an employee where the > > company doesn't mind taking a bath on the training and licensing. > > Look at N.E. THis is a perfect example. Few use it because look at the high cost of deployment, high cost of training among its limitations. Because of N.E. Informix is not supporting 4GL which is still a strong tool and has a lot of life left in it. Informix seems to think that everyone wants a client server gui for their app. Go figure. There are a lot of core applications which don't need a PC or a GUI! Of course Informix sells the big picture of ODBC connectivity, and how the PC front ends connect to the back end engine. Yet they lack the understanding of the problems of Informix's reliance on current UNIX security rather than allowing for application security. (.rhosts vs hosts.equiv. hosts vs DNS lookup.) ODBC doesn't work well with DRDA either! > > Doesn't this counter what Phil said, that they need to get back > > to the core products? Who cares about Universal Server? It's > > a cool product but I've yet to see it OR Illustra. Where's the > > demo? > Isn't so much a demo. Informix says that a products is released, however, it is in limited release. One platform, only to *special* clients. > > > > Speaking of documentation, ditch the CD-DOCS and go with HTML. > > Get with the program Informix. You CD-ROM Docs suck. Quit > Well, I wouldn't say HTML, but acrobat would be a better choice. > Amen. A quasi-proprietary runner needed, docs out of date as soon as > they arrive, no chance of an easy update... :-( > > > wondering why your sales are off. Ask me. I'll tell you. > > Grab the left side, I'll help with the right side, and we'll > > pull your head out. > > I can't reach that far, but I must concur. It's always a problem when > the marketing department believes its own press. Universal Server is > a marvellous technological breakthrough, but most folks just want to > manage their existing data easily and quickly. The whole UniServ > market is IMHO small in terms of number of users relative to the > entire market. Yes, Informix, we need to to maintain a technology > advantage over the competition, but we also need you to do other > aspects of "your job" competitively. I get the distinct impression > that Informix feel that now that they have UniServ, they can sit back > and wait for the world to come to them. > Actually I have to disagree a little. Informix is facing a threat from IBM's DB2. IBM has DB2 Universal which will do most of what Informix will do, or claims to do. So Informix has to manage to out fox the competition while it doesn't sell vaporware. Not an easy challenge. Informix does have a problem with their sales and marketing. If Phil White wants to contact me, I'll be glad to talk about some of their problems. Of course, lets look at one of the positives. Phil Nelson, here in Chicago has done an outstanding job by supporting the local users group. Not that he has to do a lot, but the little he does, goes a long way. He has taken the time to show us the restructuring of the sales force. (Yet again, which shows that Informix is partialy aware of the problem.) > And while Informix always tout their partnerships, there are a number > of simple things that they can do to "add value" (ugh!) for these > self-same partners. There are a number of very useful, easily > accessible technologies out there, Informix. Please make use of them. > There is one slight problem about relying on their partners. That is, one must remember that their partners are also partners with their competition. Just a few twisted thoughts from your favorite uncle. -- #include <std_disclaimer.h> /* Mike Segel (MS385) */ #include <No_Spam.h> #ifdef OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT The author takes no responsibility for this post. Any resemblence to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidence. -The Management. #endif