<eric@herber-consulting.de> wrote in message
news:1155199516.491500.282260@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> "Performance, Reliability, Simplicity..." this really describes
> IDS best.

> I also could not imagine that IBM didn't try to push DB2 into this
> account.
> Funny, that DB2 with all the benchmarks it wins, with all the autonomic
> features it has, with all the advertising done for it, with the large
> market share it has ...

On mainframe and AS/400 maybe. On Linux and UNIX its penetration is, in my
considerable experience, negligible.

Captain Pedantic wrote:
> <eric@herber-consulting.de> wrote in message
> news:1155199516.491500.282260@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> "Performance, Reliability, Simplicity..." this really describes
>> IDS best.
>
>> I also could not imagine that IBM didn't try to push DB2 into this
>> account.
>> Funny, that DB2 with all the benchmarks it wins, with all the
>> autonomic features it has, with all the advertising done for it,
>> with the large market share it has ...
>
> On mainframe and AS/400 maybe. On Linux and UNIX its penetration is,
> in my considerable experience, negligible.

Just how much DB2 sells in LUW platform. I am 100% convinced that it is
even less than Informix. Why doesn't IBM release figures?

Tambi Dude said:

> Just how much DB2 sells in LUW platform. I am 100% convinced that it is
> even less than Informix. Why doesn't IBM release figures?

I think you've just answered your own question. )

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"... no bill is required as no value was provided."
-- Christine Normile

eric@herber-consulting.de wrote:
> "Performance, Reliability, Simplicity..." this really describes
> IDS best.
>
> Are those the main reasons why Cisco decided to favour IDS
> instead of other commercial or free databases ?
>
> Just can't imagine that Cisco did choose IDS because of the ongoing
> advertising and marketing campaigns for IDS from IBM -
> So there have been other reasons to favour IDS. Don't know if Cisco has
> been
> an Informix shop in the past, but I did not hear the name in
> conjunction
> with Informix.
>
> I also could not imagine that IBM didn't try to push DB2 into this
> account.
> Funny, that DB2 with all the benchmarks it wins, with all the autonomic
> features it has, with all the advertising done for it, with the large
> market share it has, with the untouched scalability options and ease of
> use, didn't make the race -
>
> Why is IDS better suited for this ?
IDS is clearly better suited than DB2 for single app, embedded OLTP.
A CISCO server fits that bill. No DBA, single minded, end customer
neither knows nor cares what's underneath.

Also DB2 can't be cracked open like IDS to be extended via data blades.
Although I'm not aware that CISCO is using that. It would indeed be
interesting if Nancy spoke up.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

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

Cisco is building applications for the equipment they sell. So, like
hundreds of other ISVs, they can select which database(s) they build
on. Cisco selected IDS for it's performance, reliability and rich
feature set (I believe ER was of prime interest to Cisco). IDS
outperformed the RBDMS product Cisco used before and other products
tested by Cisco. If I recall correctly, IDS outperformed the
"competition" out of the box and was then tuned to optimum
performance levels.


The fact that IDS can be configured and tuned such that it can run
hands-free is also of great appeal to vendors like Cisco.


On Aug 10, 2006, at 4:46 AM, Neil Truby wrote:

> <eric@herber-consulting.de> wrote in message
> news:1155199516.491500.282260@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> "Performance, Reliability, Simplicity..." this really describes
>> IDS best.
>>
>> Are those the main reasons why Cisco decided to favour IDS
>> instead of other commercial or free databases ?
>
> As has been pointed out by others, it is usually the application
> that drives
> the database selection. Not sure of this particualr case.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@iiug.org
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

Christine Normile
Analyst
INFORMRme Magazine
1.800.914.8674 Ext. 713
1.210.438.7736 mobile
christine@MyINFORM-me.com

Tambi Dude wrote:
> Captain Pedantic wrote:
>> <eric@herber-consulting.de> wrote in message
>> news:1155199516.491500.282260@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>> "Performance, Reliability, Simplicity..." this really describes
>>> IDS best.
>>> I also could not imagine that IBM didn't try to push DB2 into this
>>> account.
>>> Funny, that DB2 with all the benchmarks it wins, with all the
>>> autonomic features it has, with all the advertising done for it,
>>> with the large market share it has ...
>> On mainframe and AS/400 maybe. On Linux and UNIX its penetration is,
>> in my considerable experience, negligible.
>
> Just how much DB2 sells in LUW platform. I am 100% convinced that it is
> even less than Informix. Why doesn't IBM release figures?
>
>
When I was an IBM customer I had to deal with not only IBM sales people
but also the local IBM Partners. One partner for hardware, another for
software. I asked them if they would co-op a press release of us buying
their hardware and software and give us a break on price. It's great for
free advertising of our company, the partner gets a press release, and so
does IBM, everybody gets a win, so it's a win-win for all.

They all had blank looks on their faces. Curious that the hardware partners
were actually in battle for the sale vs the software people, because the hardware
partner was proud of virtualization and needing less to do the job, and the software
vendor needed more hardware because of the CPU metric--more CPUs, more software
licenses. IBM does not seem competent to sell in a more simplistic manner that
the customer would expect, instead they fragment their products and actually
end up pitting these different products against each other. Very confusing.
I've heard that IBM actually does not have a competency to sell to new customers,
they are more competent selling to their existing base. This probably explains
a lot why they can't articulate new wins, or why new wins don't seem to be important.
They don't seem to understand new customers at all, or why other prospective
customers might want to know about new customers to help influence their buying
decisions.

To your question, I also heard from IBM that IBM sells a lot of DB2 on windows,
but not as much on Linux.

> I've heard that IBM actually does not have a competency to sell to new customers,
> they are more competent selling to their existing base.

I've recommended IBM hardware and software many times. The ones that
went with IBM have almost to-the-man come back about with very positive
reviews of the professionalism of the support and the quality of the
product. That's what "I've heard" (since bandying about anecdotes seems
to be the thing to do here). If your particular business partner was
clueless or your salesman a dick... big deal! It doesn't say anything
on the whole about an organization the size of IBM or its myriad
business partners.

http://news.com.com/Dell+trails+IBM,+HP+in+server
+satisfaction/2100-1010_3-5928629.html
"A survey of U.S. server buyers found that Dell dropped from first place
to third place in terms of satisfaction in the third quarter. IBM, stuck
at No. 3 for most of the last eight years, is now No. 1. And
Hewlett-Packard remained in its No. 2 spot, according to the survey
conducted by Technology Business Research."

Damn, I'm being childish again! But I have managed to refrain from
pointing out that some customers (as any consultant knows) are just way
too difficult and obnoxious to expect anyone to be able to work with
them successfully.

> They don't seem to understand new customers at all, or why other prospective
> customers might want to know about new customers to help influence their buying
> decisions.

Double Echo said:
> Curious that the hardware
> partners
> were actually in battle for the sale vs the software people, because the
> hardware
> partner was proud of virtualization and needing less to do the job, and
> the software
> vendor needed more hardware because of the CPU metric--more CPUs, more
> software
> licenses. IBM does not seem competent to sell in a more simplistic manner
> that
> the customer would expect, instead they fragment their products and
> actually
> end up pitting these different products against each other. Very
> confusing.
> I've heard that IBM actually does not have a competency to sell to new
> customers,
> they are more competent selling to their existing base. This probably
> explains
> a lot why they can't articulate new wins, or why new wins don't seem to be
> important.
> They don't seem to understand new customers at all, or why other
> prospective
> customers might want to know about new customers to help influence their
> buying
> decisions.

Gee, I find all of that so hard to believe.

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"... no bill is required as no value was provided."
-- Christine Normile

Adam Tauno Williams said:
> But I have managed to refrain from
> pointing out that some customers (as any consultant knows) are just way
> too difficult and obnoxious to expect anyone to be able to work with
> them successfully.

No, you didn't. p

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"... no bill is required as no value was provided."
-- Christine Normile

Interesting to hear that. However I think that IDS is generally
better suited than DB2 for OLTP based applications, not
limited to single applications or environments without
database administrator.

However IBM doesn't want it to be that. The main reason to
position IDS as embedded OLTP database is the fear that it
could pick up DB2 business outside the embedded area -
which is probably not too much, if I interpreted the quarter
results from IBM correctly.

There are some customers who run hundred's and even
thousands of IDS instances with a handful of dba's.
I've also seen many single, large IDS instances with
thousands of concurrent users accessing it and only a
single dba managing the production, test and development
environment.

If I were in marketing I would express it this way:

"IDS is designed from the ground up for autonomic
computing. An area where our competitors still
try to play catchup with additional, chargeable
tools..."

Just thinking about DB2 Recovery Expert, DB2 Performance
Expert, DB2 High Performance Unload... -


Serge Rielau schrieb:
> eric@herber-consulting.de wrote:
> > "Performance, Reliability, Simplicity..." this really describes
> > IDS best.
> >
> > Are those the main reasons why Cisco decided to favour IDS
> > instead of other commercial or free databases ?
> >
> > Just can't imagine that Cisco did choose IDS because of the ongoing
> > advertising and marketing campaigns for IDS from IBM -
> > So there have been other reasons to favour IDS. Don't know if Cisco has
> > been
> > an Informix shop in the past, but I did not hear the name in
> > conjunction
> > with Informix.
> >
> > I also could not imagine that IBM didn't try to push DB2 into this
> > account.
> > Funny, that DB2 with all the benchmarks it wins, with all the autonomic
> > features it has, with all the advertising done for it, with the large
> > market share it has, with the untouched scalability options and ease of
> > use, didn't make the race -
> >
> > Why is IDS better suited for this ?
> IDS is clearly better suited than DB2 for single app, embedded OLTP.
> A CISCO server fits that bill. No DBA, single minded, end customer
> neither knows nor cares what's underneath.
>
> Also DB2 can't be cracked open like IDS to be extended via data blades.
> Although I'm not aware that CISCO is using that. It would indeed be
> interesting if Nancy spoke up.
>
> Cheers
> Serge
> --
> Serge Rielau
> DB2 Solutions Development
> IBM Toronto Lab
>
> IOD Conference
> http://www.ibm.com/software/data/ond...ness/conf2006/