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

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?

> >>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.
> What makes Informix compelling instead of Oracle, IBM-DB2

Not much, IMHO. It may be 'nicer' in a variety of technical ways, but
they probably only matter to technical people. We use Informix because
we choose it a long time ago, today I would choose DB2.

> MS-SQL-Server,

That it runs on platforms other than Windows.

> or MySQL?

Are you serious?! Anyone who compares MySQL to DB2/Oracle/Informix
either doesn't know what they are talking about, thinks a PHP script is
a 'real application', or has simply licked too many mushrooms. The
reasons to use DB2/Oracle/Informix over something like MySQL would be
*WAY* too long to type (data integrity being the first one).

> Why would management pay for Informix instead of something else?

Because you already have it; management thinks in terms of risk.
Stinking with what you've got is low risk.

Or you are choosing an APPLICATION that uses Informix, and yes there are
still lots of them out there. My employer went shopping for a new ERP
system, and the one that ranked the highest.... recommends Informix (and
we didn't even pre-screen based on RDBMS backend). And applications are
the reason you have an RDBMS in the first place.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDwcCILRePpNle04MRAuptAJ9oqIQPIiWb3d2Rx5Wkxt LNDk039gCeMLRx
2lLmRNg40NL2ViJgIbnfF/g=
=bYTL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Adam Tauno Williams 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.
>>
>>What makes Informix compelling instead of Oracle, IBM-DB2
>
>
> Not much, IMHO. It may be 'nicer' in a variety of technical ways, but
> they probably only matter to technical people. We use Informix because
> we choose it a long time ago, today I would choose DB2.
>
>
>>MS-SQL-Server,
>
>
> That it runs on platforms other than Windows.
>
>

MS-SQL-Server runs only on Windows--unless of course you put it on
Windows running as a virtual machine on a Linux or UNIX machine. Then
I guess you could say it's technically running on something besides
Windows, but it'd still be on Windows.

>>or MySQL?
>
>
> Are you serious?! Anyone who compares MySQL to DB2/Oracle/Informix
> either doesn't know what they are talking about, thinks a PHP script is
> a 'real application', or has simply licked too many mushrooms. The
> reasons to use DB2/Oracle/Informix over something like MySQL would be
> *WAY* too long to type (data integrity being the first one).
>

Informix has Standard Engine, which compares with MySQL in terms of
an ISAM product, so, yes, I'm serious, and I **do** know what I'm
talking about. ( Here's a napkin you spilled your drink on you shirt )
Almost all the vendors make a series of products besides their large
'enterprise' products.

As to extrapolating the viability of PHP, this is another topic, I was
only talking about database products. FWIW PHP is a very popular and
useful application language, used by a lot of very successful companies
for a variety of applications. You might find this link useful in
forming your future opinions about PHP:

http://www.securityspace.com/s_surve...pachemods.html

PHP is a real application product, and the billing rates are comparable
if not better than a lot of other application environments. Really a
great application tool for the web.

>
>>Why would management pay for Informix instead of something else?
>
>
> Because you already have it; management thinks in terms of risk.
> Stinking with what you've got is low risk.
>

So you're suggesting that your company is not interested in a new
license, only renewing existing support?

> Or you are choosing an APPLICATION that uses Informix, and yes there are
> still lots of them out there. My employer went shopping for a new ERP
> system, and the one that ranked the highest.... recommends Informix (and
> we didn't even pre-screen based on RDBMS backend). And applications are
> the reason you have an RDBMS in the first place.
>

Good point(s).

Adam Tauno Williams wrote
> Or you are choosing an APPLICATION that uses Informix, and yes there
are
> still lots of them out there. My employer went shopping for a new ERP
> system, and the one that ranked the highest.... recommends Informix
(and
> we didn't even pre-screen based on RDBMS backend). And applications
are
> the reason you have an RDBMS in the first place.
>

Good point. Which begs the question "Why build an application using
Informix as the database?" Again the answer is probably due to legacy
issues (ie the software house has always developed on/in Informix). The
next question then is "Would a development house seek to support a
database for a new product or new version if the database owner was not
actively marketing the product?" "What if the development had no
experience in Informix?"


To be fair IBM has not killed Informix. They do have a development
roadmap for the database. One can only presume that they are spending
the money on development because they expect a financial return through
new or renewed licences. However in the marketing world "Product" is
only one of the aspects to the marketing mix. It is the rest of the
marketing mix that appears absent.

Trev

"trev" <trev@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9746D8108BCEFtrevnowherecom@67.97.85.12...
>
> Good point. Which begs the question "Why build an application using
> Informix as the database?" Again the answer is probably due to legacy
> issues (ie the software house has always developed on/in Informix).

The major factors governing the choice would be cost and
reliability/supportability. The OEM agreements on Informix are pretty
generous, and it's a reliable product so it should score highly but ....

> "Would a development house seek to support a
> database for a new product or new version if the database owner was not
> actively marketing the product?"

Apparently not: viz SAP, Lawson etc.

>> One can only presume that they are spending
the money on development because they expect a financial return through
new or renewed licences.

They clearly are spending a small fortune on the product, but if they are
not going to promote it, I can't understand why.

Adam Tauno Williams wrote:

> Stinking with what you've got is low risk.

So that's the secret to OTC's success.

Mark Townsend said:
>
> Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>
>> Stinking with what you've got is low risk.
>
> So that's the secret to OTC's success.

That, and an inordinately large penis.

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche

did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all
columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this
has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record
and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent
table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila,
relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit
controversial among modellers.

--r937, dbforums.com

The Informix team has worked incredibly hard this year to see
double-digit growth in our product, and have traveled the world
literally as fast as we can to spread the new message. It really
frustrates me that the "negative, unfounded comments" are still flying.
I am not saying that "all is well" - all I want is an absence of
statements that are uneducated and without merit. There are many in
this thread already. Some ARE accurate, and these are welcome whether
they are positive OR negative - that is the reality of our battle. I am
all for "calling it as it is" - that way we all get an accurate picture
of what lies ahead, both good and bad, and how to approach it. But
statements like "IBM Information Management marketing people just can't
bear to say the "Informix" word in public..." is just ludicrous, and
completely inaccurate. We have upwards of 7 people on the Informix
marketing team that say "Informix" 100% of the time - that IS their
job! And they are working very hard at it. To make statements like this
does 2 things: 1) starts/continues the negative flurry of statements,
which plants more doubt in the minds of those still unsure of the
future of Informix; and 2) insults the team that has been all over the
planet spreading the word. I personally have been in 10 countries this
year, and about 30 US cities...and ALL I do is "speak Informix." And I
am not on the marketing team - but believe me, when the
clients/partners hear someone as passionate, enthusiastic and dedicated
as myself or our Worldwide Informix Sales Leader Danilo Novelli speak
about what is happening NOW and what is ahead, heads always turn.

Now let me respond to the other statements:

IINFOBAHNS: Statement made "In these areas, the "Infobahn" is
ineffective. It fails to penetrate the untapped customer base or
potential customer base. "

RESPONSE: The Infobahns have been VERY effective all over the world.
Yes - they were mostly targeted at the current customer base. Why is
this bad? We very badly needed to rebuild our foundation with our
current customers. This seems to me to be a much easier sales situation
than brand new customers that do not know the benefits of the Informix
products. I mean - I'm no sales guy, but if you think in terms of sales
cycles, you tell me - which one would be shorter and have a higher
probability of being successful? Someone that already "is sold" on the
Informix technology, or someone who has to start from scratch? The
Infobahns also were attended by MANY partners - again, I'm not a
partner, but if I feel that Informix has a future, wouldn't I be most
likely to sell to current clients AND [for my business to survive]
wouldn't I also approach new customers with a product as technically
superior as, for example, IDS? Considering the nature of comments "out
there", if the Infobahns would have targeted ONLY new customers, and I
am certain this thread would have criticized us for NOT taking care of
the current customers.

JANET'S BRANDING OF INFORMIX INTO DB2: The statement was "...perhaps
that is because Janet's branding of Informix into DB2 was very
effective..."

RESPONSE: This is old news, and has been acknowledged by our team in
many, many places as something that was confusing and had a very bad
effect on the current customer base and the public perception in
general. We have made it known to many customers (at the Atlanta
Informix Forum 2005 was my most recent mention of this) that the DB2
brand is being removed from corporate presentations and on as much
collateral as we can right now. What used to be "DB2 Information
Management" is now Information Management. I am certain if you go to
the web, you will still find the "DB2 Brand..." to be mentioned. But we
have specifically been told that for customer facing presentations
going forward, that the corporate templates DO NOT say "DB2 Information
Management", but just "Information Management."

PROBLEM #3: NO NEW GENERATION OF INFORMIX DBA'S....: The statement was
"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..."

RESPONSE: Well - I for one know this is NOT true as I have been asked
to do a series of webcasts on "The Fundamentals of Informix" for the
NEW Informix DBA's that are being found at customer sites. One of my
favorite customers in St. Louis not only has a 2nd DBA to help the only
Informix DBA for the past 3+ years now, they have asked me to come and
do a 1/2 day pitch to the Oracle DBA's as cross-training. That is
great! What really bothers me about this statement though is the "I may
be wrong, but..." - if you don't know, then why say it at all? It's
pure speculation, and again, just starts the negative flurry of
uneducated statements. I do not know the answer to that one, as I
traveled to neither China or India this year. But I do know that Janet
stopped in China after she and I spoke at the Informix Infobahn to
stand-room-only crowds in Tokyo. And yes, she was there to talk about
one product - Informix. If China was completely void of any Informix,
why would she go there? I am hoping that if our team sees this and they
did in fact cover China or India they will jump in.

4GL and EGL: Statement was: "...I don't believe even IBM takes EGL
seriously at the moment"

RESPONSE: I'll make this one short - we have an entire team in
development dedicated to EGL. IBM does not fund this type of effort,
period, if they are "serious about it." Now - I don't have an idea what
the future of EGL is with respect to replacing 4GL. Not being an
application person, my opinion really doesn't matter. That is why I
wouldn't say anything with regards to the seriousness of IBM towards
EGL, and I work for IBM. it's always fascinating to me how someone who
does not work on that team - let alone for IBM - can make bold
statements about how IBM feels about a product they are trying to sell.


THE DOUBLE-ECHO questions: I'll leave those alone. If that knowledge
isn't already deeply engrained in this persons head, then I cannot hope
to persuade him via a CDI thread. All I know is that we have traveled
the world explaining exactly THIS - why we are a better choice for many
clients than the other players. This has been my mission since joining
Informix in 1995. I would hope that some of you would join me. And
instead of criticizing IBM for what they do so wrong....if you have
ground-breaking ideas and the skills to do what you think IBM should be
doing - apply for a job here! We can always use more Informix folks!

I would hope that the IIUG board would respond to threads like this
one. There are many people on the board that have a great deal of
information on many of the topics I have raised. If I am the lone
ranger on this, then I don't carry enough weight (although I am
carrying more from international travel!) to persuade the masses.

Thanks for listening -
Mark Scranton
IBM Worldwide Informix Technical Strategist
mark.scranton@us.ibm.com

mark.scranton@gmail.com wrote:
> If China was completely void of any Informix,
> why would she go there? I am hoping that if our team sees this and they
> did in fact cover China or India they will jump in.
I'm not on Marks team, but I am in China...
Both major ISVs (one in Beijing, one in Shenzhen) where I have spent
time have IDS in house along with DB2 and .... I have encountered new
hires straight from school at IBM China as well as those ISVs who cited
Informix experience when I surveyed DBMS backgrounds.
To be frank, one of these ISVs, I'm told, hires 1000 employees/month and
for the majority the IT folks here are a blank slate. They start of at
the same spot to learn any DBMS. Leads to interesting conclusions about
which complexity software they can digest, btw....
The DBA/App developer with 5 years experience in <place product here>
statistically doesn't exist in China.

Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
DB2 UDB for Linux, Unix, Windows
IBM Toronto Lab