IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference

On Feb 6, 9:18 am, Madison Pruet wrote:
> Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 6:34 am, Wikking wrote:
> >>http://www.ibmdatabasemag.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21130....
>
> >> --
>
> >> }(:
>
> > Wow the king of wankers can regurgitate a link to a url.
>
> > But one has to ask what will Ambuj or Jerry Keesee say about Informix
> > marketing?
>
> > IBM doesn't want to spend any money on Informix marketing. Or if they
> > have to, they want to spend as little as possible. Take the IIUG
> > event.
> > True, IBM helped jumpstart it. The reason KC (Lenexa/Overland Park)
> > was chosen was that IBM Lenexa (The old Informix offices) are just a
> > mile down the road.
>
> Not entirely true.  By having the conference in a place like Kansas City
> the cost to the attendees is significantly reduced.  We wanter to have a
> location centrally located and also a place where the hotel costs would
> be fairly reasonable.  That eliminated places like Chicago, Dallas, and
> Houston.
>
> Holding the conference here meant that more IBMers
>
> > could attend because for the most part, they wouldn't have to travel.
>
> Well I have to travel.  John Miller has to travel.  Scott Lashley has to
> travel.  Fred Ho has to travel.  Curt Cotner has to travel.  Srinivasan
> Mottupalli has to travel.  Vijay Lolabattu has to travel.  Keshava
> Murthy has to travel.  Alan Caldera has to travel. (etc....).
>
> A large percentage of the IBM speakers will have to travel.
>
Madison,
Outside of speakers, where do the majority of Informix people live and
work?

Menlo Park? Not really anymore.

Portland? That's Steve Miller's team

Atlanta? That's Alan Caldera and he's really the only one from that
area unless he's relocated.

True cost was a factor, but then you could have held the event at the
Courtyard Marriot in Brookpark, OH (Its by the airport bordering
Cleveland.)
But when we planned the first one, there was this idea of getting back
to Informix's roots. Ok so Menlo would have been too expensive and
well Lenexa is almost as good.

>
>
> > But the interesting thing about this conference... Its not IBM doing
> > the heavy lifting, its the user group community.
>
> > Thats the point. Informix survives not because of IBM, but because of
> > its user base.
>
> > So when you go to Lenexa, ask Jerry Keesee what's IBM's go to market
> > strategy now that DB2 and IDS are going to overlap even more when they
> > add more DW features in to IDS.
>
> Hummmmm   Guess you know something that I don't.

Well, if you had listened to Jerry's last call, he did a bit of a road
map. If you missed it, I can send you the slide deck, or you can read
his comments on Eric's InformixZone's website. Eric posted a
translation from the Czech Computerworld interview.

Yes there is overlap already. IBM continues to perform OLTP benchmarks
using DB2. This is a bit ironic because it's counter to their 'go to
market' strategy which states IDS is their OLTP platform of choice.
Yet no benchmarks. Jerry defended IBM's position on benchmarks by
saying that it is very expensive (no numbers given) and that once you
start playing the benchmarking game, you're going to have to continue
and defend your benchmarks.

My guess is that IBM doesn't want to embarass themselves by doing a
benchmark on IDS that would directly compete with DB2's numbers.
(I think he alluded to this as well.) That would be a reason not to do
the TPC-C benchmark. There is the TPC-E benchmark, but Jerry made the
point in that unless you have two competitors, you don't have much of
a war. Meaning that IBM is willing to cede the TPC-E benchmark to
Microsoft and let the hardware players slug it out.

So if Informix is going to get features that were in XPS and better
integration with Cognos, you can bet that there will be even more
overlap with DB2.
While Jerry didn't give specifics and what features will be in which
release, the roadmap is a clear indication of continuing confusion in
moving forward.
This is a critical mess that IBM needs to resolve ASAP.

The king of wankers is correct about FUD. Unfortunately its IBM that
is creating the FUD. Almost as bad as Diane F. did back in the
Informix days.

-G
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:18 am, Madison Pruet wrote:
>> Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 6:34 am, Wikking wrote:
>>>> http://www.ibmdatabasemag.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21130...
>>>> --
>>>> }(:
>>> Wow the king of wankers can regurgitate a link to a url.
>>> But one has to ask what will Ambuj or Jerry Keesee say about Informix
>>> marketing?
>>> IBM doesn't want to spend any money on Informix marketing. Or if they
>>> have to, they want to spend as little as possible. Take the IIUG
>>> event.
>>> True, IBM helped jumpstart it. The reason KC (Lenexa/Overland Park)
>>> was chosen was that IBM Lenexa (The old Informix offices) are just a
>>> mile down the road.
>> Not entirely true. By having the conference in a place like Kansas City
>> the cost to the attendees is significantly reduced. We wanter to have a
>> location centrally located and also a place where the hotel costs would
>> be fairly reasonable. That eliminated places like Chicago, Dallas, and
>> Houston.
>>
>> Holding the conference here meant that more IBMers
>>
>>> could attend because for the most part, they wouldn't have to travel.
>> Well I have to travel. John Miller has to travel. Scott Lashley has to
>> travel. Fred Ho has to travel. Curt Cotner has to travel. Srinivasan
>> Mottupalli has to travel. Vijay Lolabattu has to travel. Keshava
>> Murthy has to travel. Alan Caldera has to travel. (etc....).
>>
>> A large percentage of the IBM speakers will have to travel.
>>
> Madison,
> Outside of speakers, where do the majority of Informix people live and
> work?
>
> Menlo Park? Not really anymore.

Menlo Park has been closed for some time now.

>
> Portland? That's Steve Miller's team

That is simply not true. Steve Miller is a marketing person. There are
several developers working out of the Portland/Beaverton area and they
are not on Steve Miller's team.

>
> Atlanta? That's Alan Caldera and he's really the only one from that
> area unless he's relocated.
>
> True cost was a factor, but then you could have held the event at the
> Courtyard Marriot in Brookpark, OH (Its by the airport bordering
> Cleveland.)
> But when we planned the first one, there was this idea of getting back
> to Informix's roots. Ok so Menlo would have been too expensive and
> well Lenexa is almost as good.


My point is that the development team is highly dispersed. Some folks
are in Lenexa, but some folks are in Portland, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas,
San Jose, Denver, Boston, etc. And there will be quite a bit of travel
required on IBM's part to attend.

>
>>
>>> But the interesting thing about this conference... Its not IBM doing
>>> the heavy lifting, its the user group community.
>>> Thats the point. Informix survives not because of IBM, but because of
>>> its user base.
>>> So when you go to Lenexa, ask Jerry Keesee what's IBM's go to market
>>> strategy now that DB2 and IDS are going to overlap even more when they
>>> add more DW features in to IDS.
>> Hummmmm Guess you know something that I don't.
>
> Well, if you had listened to Jerry's last call, he did a bit of a road
> map. If you missed it, I can send you the slide deck, or you can read
> his comments on Eric's InformixZone's website. Eric posted a
> translation from the Czech Computerworld interview.

We haven't even got the feature list in the next release finalized yet
so there's no sense in trying to project what will be in that release.
We do have as part of our charter to integrate IDS with as much of IBM's
portfolio as possible. Since Cognos is an IBM product, then it only
stands to reason that we would increase our inter-operatibility with it.

>
> Yes there is overlap already. IBM continues to perform OLTP benchmarks
> using DB2. This is a bit ironic because it's counter to their 'go to
> market' strategy which states IDS is their OLTP platform of choice.
> Yet no benchmarks. Jerry defended IBM's position on benchmarks by
> saying that it is very expensive (no numbers given) and that once you
> start playing the benchmarking game, you're going to have to continue
> and defend your benchmarks.
>
> My guess is that IBM doesn't want to embarass themselves by doing a
> benchmark on IDS that would directly compete with DB2's numbers.
> (I think he alluded to this as well.) That would be a reason not to do
> the TPC-C benchmark. There is the TPC-E benchmark, but Jerry made the
> point in that unless you have two competitors, you don't have much of
> a war. Meaning that IBM is willing to cede the TPC-E benchmark to
> Microsoft and let the hardware players slug it out.
>
> So if Informix is going to get features that were in XPS and better
> integration with Cognos, you can bet that there will be even more
> overlap with DB2.
> While Jerry didn't give specifics and what features will be in which
> release, the roadmap is a clear indication of continuing confusion in
> moving forward.
> This is a critical mess that IBM needs to resolve ASAP.
>
> The king of wankers is correct about FUD. Unfortunately its IBM that
> is creating the FUD. Almost as bad as Diane F. did back in the
> Informix days.
>
> -G
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
> On Feb 6, 6:34 am, Wikking wrote:
>> http://www.ibmdatabasemag.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21130...
>>
>> --
>>
>> }(:
>
> Wow the king of wankers can regurgitate a link to a url.
>
> But one has to ask what will Ambuj or Jerry Keesee say about Informix
> marketing?
>

> IBM doesn't want to spend any money on Informix marketing. Or if they
> have to, they want to spend as little as possible. Take the IIUG
> event.
> True, IBM helped jumpstart it. The reason KC (Lenexa/Overland Park)
> was chosen was that IBM Lenexa (The old Informix offices) are just a
> mile down the road.

Not entirely true. By having the conference in a place like Kansas City
the cost to the attendees is significantly reduced. We wanter to have a
location centrally located and also a place where the hotel costs would
be fairly reasonable. That eliminated places like Chicago, Dallas, and
Houston.

Holding the conference here meant that more IBMers
> could attend because for the most part, they wouldn't have to travel.

Well I have to travel. John Miller has to travel. Scott Lashley has to
travel. Fred Ho has to travel. Curt Cotner has to travel. Srinivasan
Mottupalli has to travel. Vijay Lolabattu has to travel. Keshava
Murthy has to travel. Alan Caldera has to travel. (etc....).

A large percentage of the IBM speakers will have to travel.
>
> But the interesting thing about this conference... Its not IBM doing
> the heavy lifting, its the user group community.
>
> Thats the point. Informix survives not because of IBM, but because of
> its user base.
>
> So when you go to Lenexa, ask Jerry Keesee what's IBM's go to market
> strategy now that DB2 and IDS are going to overlap even more when they
> add more DW features in to IDS.

Hummmmm Guess you know something that I don't.
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

"Madison Pruet" wrote in message

> Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 6:34 am, Wikking wrote:
>>> http://www.ibmdatabasemag.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21130...
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> }(:
>>
>> Wow the king of wankers can regurgitate a link to a url.
>>
>> But one has to ask what will Ambuj or Jerry Keesee say about Informix
>> marketing?
>>
>
>> IBM doesn't want to spend any money on Informix marketing. Or if they
>> have to, they want to spend as little as possible. Take the IIUG
>> event.
>> True, IBM helped jumpstart it. The reason KC (Lenexa/Overland Park)
>> was chosen was that IBM Lenexa (The old Informix offices) are just a
>> mile down the road.
>
> Not entirely true. By having the conference in a place like Kansas City
> the cost to the attendees is significantly reduced. We wanter to have a
> location centrally located

Er, well, speak for yourself! There are no direct flights to Kansas from
outside the US.

> and also a place where the hotel costs would be fairly reasonable. That
> eliminated places like Chicago, Dallas, and Houston.

But your central point is spot on. It was truly great value last year, and
indeed this year, although with the economy as it is, and the plunging
pound, I can't affird to go
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

Neil Truby wrote:
> "Madison Pruet" wrote in message
>
>> Ian Michael Gumby wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 6:34 am, Wikking wrote:
>>>> http://www.ibmdatabasemag.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21130...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> }(:
>>>
>>> Wow the king of wankers can regurgitate a link to a url.
>>>
>>> But one has to ask what will Ambuj or Jerry Keesee say about Informix
>>> marketing?
>>>
>>
>>> IBM doesn't want to spend any money on Informix marketing. Or if they
>>> have to, they want to spend as little as possible. Take the IIUG
>>> event.
>>> True, IBM helped jumpstart it. The reason KC (Lenexa/Overland Park)
>>> was chosen was that IBM Lenexa (The old Informix offices) are just a
>>> mile down the road.
>>
>> Not entirely true. By having the conference in a place like Kansas
>> City the cost to the attendees is significantly reduced. We wanter to
>> have a location centrally located
>
> Er, well, speak for yourself! There are no direct flights to Kansas
> from outside the US.


Er, well, I usually drive to Kansas City....

>
>> and also a place where the hotel costs would be fairly reasonable.
>> That eliminated places like Chicago, Dallas, and Houston.
>
> But your central point is spot on. It was truly great value last year,
> and indeed this year, although with the economy as it is, and the
> plunging pound, I can't affird to go
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

Ian Michael Gumby wrote:

> Yes there is overlap already. IBM continues to perform OLTP benchmarks
> using DB2. This is a bit ironic because it's counter to their 'go to
> market' strategy which states IDS is their OLTP platform of choice.
> Yet no benchmarks. Jerry defended IBM's position on benchmarks by
> saying that it is very expensive (no numbers given) and that once you
> start playing the benchmarking game, you're going to have to continue
> and defend your benchmarks.
>

I really hope that when available, people will listen the webcast recording.
You keep saying the same thing (and it's true that Jerry said more or less
that), but you don't say everything he said...
And what he said is a straight answer, very honest and with very valid points.

I will not repeat what he said. It's better for anyone interested to go to:

http://www.ibm.com/informix/webcasts

and listen for themselves (the sound is not thery yet, just the slides. Usually
the sound recording will show up in about a month).

We're all free to disagree with the answer, but it's a point of view. With
valid reasons.


> My guess is that IBM doesn't want to embarass themselves by doing a
> benchmark on IDS that would directly compete with DB2's numbers.
> (I think he alluded to this as well.) That would be a reason not to do
> the TPC-C benchmark. There is the TPC-E benchmark, but Jerry made the
> point in that unless you have two competitors, you don't have much of
> a war. Meaning that IBM is willing to cede the TPC-E benchmark to
> Microsoft and let the hardware players slug it out.

Oh... after a dozen posts you get to the point... You "think" he "alluded" to
that. I would put it in other words, but as I wrote, hopefully anyone
interested will listen to it (when and where they feel comfortable)

Regards.

--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

Madison Pruet wrote:

> We haven't even got the feature list in the next release finalized yet
> so there's no sense in trying to project what will be in that release.
> We do have as part of our charter to integrate IDS with as much of IBM's
> portfolio as possible. Since Cognos is an IBM product, then it only
> stands to reason that we would increase our inter-operatibility with it.
>

I have a cheer of customers voting on idsdb00171373

--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

>
> I will not repeat what he said. It's better for anyone interested to go to:
>
> http://www.ibm.com/informix/webcasts
>


Slide 27 pretty much sums it up - Informix. Invisible, Agile, Resilient
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference 

Mark Townsend wrote:
>
>>
>> I will not repeat what he said. It's better for anyone interested to
>> go to:
>>
>> http://www.ibm.com/informix/webcasts
>>
>
>
> Slide 27 pretty much sums it up - Informix. Invisible, Agile, Resilient

lad you agree. Depending on how you interpret it, these are very good
characteristics for the customers or for the competitors.

Oracle is the opposite... In both interpretations....

Regards.

--
Fernando Nunes
Portugal

http://informix-technology.blogspot.com
My email works... but I don't check it frequently...
 >> Stay informed about: IIUG Returns to Kansas for its 2009 Conference