trev wrote:
> Michael Segel <MNoSpamSegel@NoSPAMSegel.com> wrote
>
>
>>IBM desires to compete in the SMB and "White Space" market places.
>>In these areas, the "Infobahn" is ineffective. It fails to penetrate
>>the untapped customer base or potential customer base.
>
>
> And that is problem No 1.
> Problem No 2 is that the credible "independent" technology forcasters
> even see Informix on the It landscape. Perhaps that is because Janet
> P's debranding of Informix into DB2 was very effective. Or perhaps it
> is just because the IBM Information Management marketing people just
> cant bear to say the "Informix" word in public.
> Problem No 3 is that, because of problem No's 1 and 2, there is no new
> generation of Informix DBA's or developers coming along. I may be
> wrong, (often am) but I doubt that even IT companies in India or China,
> the great global outsource engines, are making an investment in
> Informix. Now, I know that IBM are hoping that EGL will become the
> Informix 4GL replacement but I don't even think IBM takes EGL seriously
> at the moment.
>
> Michael. I agree with your musings.
>
> Trev
>



What makes Informix compelling instead of Oracle, MS-SQL-Server, IBM-DB2 or MySQL?

Why would management pay for Informix instead of something else?

What is the benefit to Informix?