> -----Original Message-----
> From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-
> bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Double Echo
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 02:57
> To: informix-list@iiug.org
> Subject: Re: Informix business grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2)
>
> Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
> > Cisco is a well known Informix user, isn't it Nancy?
> >
>
> How do you know Cisco bought Informix, and why does it matter?


I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and admit it
publicly.

Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.

France Telecom is make a speech at the Paris Infobahn in September.

Cisco is hiring and sends people to conferences.

And this is not news from the last century. It's all around NOW.


> > France Telecom is another... thus it is more an operator.
> >
> > Informix is doing well. Plenty of interesting deals are done, being
> done,
> > etc. IBM should certainly communicate more around that, but IBM is
> IBM...
> >
> > jgp
> >
>
> Tell me something. How does a developer or consultant rally behind a
> software product that few if any people know about? How does that work?
>
> Why should developers get excited or interested in something that they
> are not sure there will be a future or be able to find work?
>
> Why should a developer support a product that the vendor is reluctant to
> support publicly? Why is the burden of brand support in the market on the
> developer community or existing customer base? Is the vendor just a lazy
> slob? How does that work?

I have a few friends working in the COBOL industry and they are making
fortunes .

Developers do not care that much about the Back End, it's all SQL after all
.

I don't see & recognize Informix in your comments here.

>
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-
>> bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Double Echo
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 02:57
>> To: informix-list@iiug.org
>> Subject: Re: Informix business grew by double digits in 2006 (Q1+Q2)
>>
>> Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
>>> Cisco is a well known Informix user, isn't it Nancy?
>>>
>> How do you know Cisco bought Informix, and why does it matter?
>
>
> I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and admit it
> publicly.
>
> Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.
>

Didn't see it.

> France Telecom is make a speech at the Paris Infobahn in September.
>

Didn't see it.

> Cisco is hiring and sends people to conferences.
>

Didn't see it.

> And this is not news from the last century. It's all around NOW.
>

Goody goody.

>
>>> France Telecom is another... thus it is more an operator.
>>>
>>> Informix is doing well. Plenty of interesting deals are done, being
>> done,
>>> etc. IBM should certainly communicate more around that, but IBM is
>> IBM...
>>> jgp
>>>
>> Tell me something. How does a developer or consultant rally behind a
>> software product that few if any people know about? How does that work?
>>
>> Why should developers get excited or interested in something that they
>> are not sure there will be a future or be able to find work?
>>
>> Why should a developer support a product that the vendor is reluctant to
>> support publicly? Why is the burden of brand support in the market on the
>> developer community or existing customer base? Is the vendor just a lazy
>> slob? How does that work?
>
> I have a few friends working in the COBOL industry and they are making
> fortunes .
>
> Developers do not care that much about the Back End, it's all SQL after all
> .
>
You didn't answer my questions, but I didn't think anyone here would.

Developers need a package that they can use to build software solutions.

Again, I've said it too many times before, it's not the database that
sells the solution, it's the application. Informix databases were nothing
without 4GL. I remember pre-4GL environments, using CISAM. Nobody cared.
Then 4GL came out, and suddenly it got interesting. And suddenly there
was a lot of excitement about the database. Selling databases doesn't
work without applications. Nobody I know is going to get excited about
onstat. But they _will_ get excited about how fast their applications
run. Developers are the foundation--and I'm not just talking about coders.
I'm talking about application builders who want to make money in vertical
markets. They need a reliable database with speed, and something with
low maintenance and few moving parts for reliability--like the old Maytag
product line. As the application gets more complex, the database feature
set goes with it. But _today_ I can build most applications on MySQL, and
never need anything from an Informix database. I use portable components
that don't cost me money up front, and a database back-end that doesn't cost
me any money up front. Before I sell a solution, I ask where it will be
used, and if what I have will fit. I'll gamble on a simple database anytime
that just simply works. If the data set becomes a problem, I'll recommend
a faster database, port the application, and make more money. But until I can go
to my customer and tell them that the solution involves industry recognized
parts, I'm not going to gamble on it. Why should I do the vendor's job?



> I don't see & recognize Informix in your comments here.
>

That's because you don't think outside the Informix box.

>> _______________________________________________
>> Informix-list mailing list
>> Informix-list@iiug.org
>> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
>
>

> >>> Cisco is a well known Informix user, isn't it Nancy?
> >> How do you know Cisco bought Informix, and why does it matter?
> > I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and admit it
> > publicly.
> > Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.
> Didn't see it.
> > France Telecom is make a speech at the Paris Infobahn in September.
> Didn't see it.
> > Cisco is hiring and sends people to conferences.
> Didn't see it.

Of course not; records filtered out by negativity index = 3

> > I have a few friends working in the COBOL industry and they are making
> > fortunes .
> > Developers do not care that much about the Back End, it's all SQL after all
> > .
> You didn't answer my questions, but I didn't think anyone here would.

How is "Developers do not care that much about the Back End, it's all
SQL after all" not an answer to the question.

> But _today_ I can build most applications on MySQL, and
> never need anything from an Informix database.

Ha! That's funny! And complete crap. But whatever. (I suppose it
depends on how you define "most applications")

> I use portable components
> that don't cost me money up front, and a database back-end that doesn't cost
> me any money up front.

Right... which completely negates your rant about "Then 4GL came out,
and suddenly it got interesting. And suddenly there was a lot of
excitement about the database. Selling databases doesn't work without
applications. Nobody I know is going to get excited about onstat."...

Databases are now like commodities; people don't develop in things like
4GL (tied to a specific backend) - they develop in .NET, Java, PHP,
etc... Applications, at least ideally, don't care that much about the
backend. But if anyone thinks that makes the backend doesn't matter...
then let them use MySQL, you'll never get them to pay for anything
anyway.

My experience with IBM, Informix products, and Informix support has been
excellent. Finding people who know about Informix hasn't been a
problem. Finding applications that explicitly support Informix has not
been a problem; yes, even *NEW* applications.

Hooray for IBM! And their success with Informix. (Without IBM, of
course, there probably wouldn't be *ANY* Informix at this point).

If any employees of IBM are still bludgeoning themselves by reading this
thread I extend a congratulations on your successes and am looking
forward to more. I assure you there are more of me than of these few
nattering nabobs.

Jean Georges Perrin wrote:

> I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and admit it
> publicly.
>
> Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.

An interesting phrase. Does one "admit" to being an Informix user
sort like "admitting" to having a drinking problem?

I think Informix deserves better than this even if IBM is treating
it like a second-class citizen.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

DA Morgan wrote:
> Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
>
>> I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and
>> admit it
>> publicly.
>> Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.
>
> An interesting phrase. Does one "admit" to being an Informix user
> sort like "admitting" to having a drinking problem?
>
> I think Informix deserves better than this even if IBM is treating
> it like a second-class citizen.
I'm impressed Daniel. Did you really show restraint until now, or were
you merely absent?
Walmart, doesn't make much of a fuss about their IT. They have always
been a big Informix user. For this years IIUG/IDUG conference they
participated in a keynote video praising IDS.

Cheers
Serge

PS: Wal-Mart didn't admit to using Oracle DBMS.... ;-)
PPS: If you want to learn what IBM does or doesn't do with IDS come to
the IOD conference.
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

IOD Conference
http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ond...ness/conf2006/

Ooooh the ps2 is harsh, Serge! The IIUG/IDUG Europe conference is BEFORE
IOD )

But serge is right, nothing never comes out of Walmart and they did the
video! and they are not the only one!

it is not perfect but you can see progress over the years, and this is also
partly the result of a lot of hours of advocacy from the IIUG bod...


On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:12:21 -0400, Serge Rielau wrote
> DA Morgan wrote:
> > Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
> >
> >> I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and
> >> admit it
> >> publicly.
> >> Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.
> >
> > An interesting phrase. Does one "admit" to being an Informix user
> > sort like "admitting" to having a drinking problem?
> >
> > I think Informix deserves better than this even if IBM is treating
> > it like a second-class citizen.
> I'm impressed Daniel. Did you really show restraint until now, or
> were you merely absent? Walmart, doesn't make much of a fuss about
> their IT. They have always been a big Informix user. For this years
> IIUG/IDUG conference they participated in a keynote video praising IDS.
>
> Cheers
> Serge
>
> PS: Wal-Mart didn't admit to using Oracle DBMS.... ;-)
> PPS: If you want to learn what IBM does or doesn't do with IDS come
> to the IOD conference.
> --
> Serge Rielau
> DB2 Solutions Development
> IBM Toronto Lab
>
> IOD Conference
> http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ond...ness/conf2006/
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list


--
jgp

And you're playing with subtilities of English...

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:12:54 -0700, DA Morgan wrote
> Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
>
> > I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and admit
it
> > publicly.
> >
> > Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.
>
> An interesting phrase. Does one "admit" to being an Informix user
> sort like "admitting" to having a drinking problem?
>
> I think Informix deserves better than this even if IBM is treating
> it like a second-class citizen.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan@x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
> www.psoug.org
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list


--
jgp

Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
> And you're playing with subtilities of English...
>
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:12:54 -0700, DA Morgan wrote
>> Jean Georges Perrin wrote:
>>
>>> I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and admit
> it
>>> publicly.
>>>
>>> Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.
>> An interesting phrase. Does one "admit" to being an Informix user
>> sort like "admitting" to having a drinking problem?
>>
>> I think Informix deserves better than this even if IBM is treating
>> it like a second-class citizen.
>> --
>> Daniel A. Morgan
>> University of Washington
>> damorgan@x.washington.edu
>> (replace x with u to respond)
>> Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
>> www.psoug.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Informix-list mailing list
>> Informix-list@iiug.org
>> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
>
>
> --
> jgp

Guilty as charged. ;-)
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org

Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>>>>> Cisco is a well known Informix user, isn't it Nancy?
>>>> How do you know Cisco bought Informix, and why does it matter?
>>> I think it matters that big, huge corporation choose Informix and admit it
>>> publicly.
>>> Wal-Mart made a video with IBM admitting its superior quality.
>> Didn't see it.
>>> France Telecom is make a speech at the Paris Infobahn in September.
>> Didn't see it.
>>> Cisco is hiring and sends people to conferences.
>> Didn't see it.
>
> Of course not; records filtered out by negativity index = 3
>
>>> I have a few friends working in the COBOL industry and they are making
>>> fortunes .
>>> Developers do not care that much about the Back End, it's all SQL after all
>>> .
>> You didn't answer my questions, but I didn't think anyone here would.
>
> How is "Developers do not care that much about the Back End, it's all
> SQL after all" not an answer to the question.
>

And how are you even relevant to the discussion? Giving silly or
angry responses like some kind of school boy is not an answer, it's
just anger or stupidity.

>> But _today_ I can build most applications on MySQL, and
>> never need anything from an Informix database.
>
> Ha! That's funny! And complete crap. But whatever. (I suppose it
> depends on how you define "most applications")
>

You obviously have a strong opinion about Informix being the right
solution for you. But you don't really articulate yourself very
well with what you write. It's just anger and hostility, not supported
by any facts. You use "complete crap" as if that's an answer, but it's
not substantial, it's just emotional, non-factual crybaby whining. Anyway...

I don't see a lot of momentum for Informix in most of the shops that I
visit or talk to. It's not my fault, I didn't create the lack of interest
in Informix. I'm certainly not going to try to create interest in Informix
when the customer in most cases is not willing to entertain an unknown
quantity--and not only that, why would I want to risk my own credibility on
an unknown? I mean after all, Informix is so unknown, it's comparable to
a new product that very few people know about. It has an air of risk that
I'm not sure a lot of managers would want to impose on themselves. What's
in it for me? What's in it for the customer? So what if a few big companies
are using it. Why doesn't IBM set the sale correctly in the beginning by
offering incentives to companies that will admit to using it publicly?


>> I use portable components
>> that don't cost me money up front, and a database back-end that doesn't cost
>> me any money up front.
>
> Right... which completely negates your rant about "Then 4GL came out,
> and suddenly it got interesting. And suddenly there was a lot of
> excitement about the database. Selling databases doesn't work without
> applications. Nobody I know is going to get excited about onstat."...
>

I don't know about negating anything, but you obviously have an ax to
grind with me, and are very defensive of Informix. That's cool, but it
doesn't really make your arguments sound. You obviously missed my point,
and for that I am extremely sorry. I find a lot of people don't understand
that applications are what drive database sales, so you're no exception.

> Databases are now like commodities; people don't develop in things like
> 4GL (tied to a specific backend) - they develop in .NET, Java, PHP,
> etc... Applications, at least ideally, don't care that much about the
> backend. But if anyone thinks that makes the backend doesn't matter...
> then let them use MySQL, you'll never get them to pay for anything
> anyway.
>

Actually your ignorance is really showing about MySQL. But I don't want
to have to go into that kind of discussion, I'd rather just say that a lot
of PHP was specifically targeted at MySQL, and the two developer communities
have a lot of linkage. That's a good thing, and especially for developers
of all types, whether they be students, web developers, vertical application
developers, or who ever. PHP/MySQL is a lot like what 4GL/Informix was. The
two complement each other. But again I don't need to prove that, it really
doesn't matter, it speaks for itself, whether you agree or not. Most of the
development environments I have worked in do indeed have a strong connection
between the front-end and the back end. For example, a lot of ASP shops are
using what? ___________ They are most likely not using Linux, or open source.
What do you think most open source shops are using? ASP? I think not. So
your statements above are truly crap, and emotional. You should quit while
you are behind.


> My experience with IBM, Informix products, and Informix support has been
> excellent. Finding people who know about Informix hasn't been a
> problem. Finding applications that explicitly support Informix has not
> been a problem; yes, even *NEW* applications.
>

Oh good. Well you ahead and fly the flag for Informix, and do what IBM
should be doing. Carry the flag, and you lead the charge. Good Luck!

> Hooray for IBM! And their success with Informix. (Without IBM, of
> course, there probably wouldn't be *ANY* Informix at this point).
>

And so what. The database market will do just fine without Informix, it's
not that important. It might be a good product, but it's not important in
the larger picture of what decision makers are buying and using. Until the
product is given the complete package of advertising, marketing, brand
building, developer programs, it's all bullshit. Informix will just stay
a tinker toy for IBM. That's probably all it will ever be.


> If any employees of IBM are still bludgeoning themselves by reading this
> thread I extend a congratulations on your successes and am looking
> forward to more. I assure you there are more of me than of these few
> nattering nabobs.
>

I challenge you to channel your anger in another direction besides at me, and
have some facts to back up what you talk about. Your anger implies frustration
of having nothing to say other than call me names. You lack a good response to
what I'm saying so you write angry statements as if that makes it all right.
Being angry doesn't make you right, it just makes you angry.

Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> Hooray for IBM! And their success with Informix. (Without IBM, of
> course, there probably wouldn't be *ANY* Informix at this point).

I don't think Informix would have gone out of business.
Well Sybase is doing well. In fact last Q they showed a growth of 27%.
Sybase ASE ver 15 is very very good.