progress

[Dirk Moolman]

I am getting a "little" frustrated with a guy here that keeps insisting
Informix is crap, and Progress is the best database in the world.

Anyone who knows Progress & Informix, please send me some stuff Informix
can do that Progress can't. I know this is not fair, I just want some
backup the next time he tells me Progress is the best.

It's either that or I have to shoot him to shut up ...

sending to informix-list

[John Carlson]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:57:31 +0200, "Dirk Moolman"
<DirkM@mxgroup.co.za> wrote:

>
>I am getting a "little" frustrated with a guy here that keeps insisting
>Informix is crap, and Progress is the best database in the world.
>
>Anyone who knows Progress & Informix, please send me some stuff Informix
>can do that Progress can't. I know this is not fair, I just want some
>backup the next time he tells me Progress is the best.
>
>It's either that or I have to shoot him to shut up ...
>
>sending to informix-list

Of course, you could have him put up or shut up . . . . have him state
his case why Progress is 'better'.

[Obnoxio The Clown]

Dirk Moolman wrote:

>
> I am getting a "little" frustrated with a guy here that keeps insisting
> Informix is crap, and Progress is the best database in the world.
>
> Anyone who knows Progress & Informix, please send me some stuff Informix
> can do that Progress can't. I know this is not fair, I just want some
> backup the next time he tells me Progress is the best.
>
> It's either that or I have to shoot him to shut up ...

Shoot him, it's quicker and less stressful for both of you.

In a practical sense, it's difficult to compare them, because Progress has a
very rich 4GL that is inherently part of of the environment.

Progress's website is so opaque and difficult to find things in, it actually
make's IBM's look good.

<read, read, read>

OK, well, on the basics, it seems Progress is OK, but they have a pretty
complete software stack. So they wouldn't make it possible for the database
to do stuff like hide a screen scrape from someone else's website in the
database, they'd probably make it available in the middleware stack. I'd
also be fairly gobsmacked if they could do stuff like allow you to do
things like implement your own secondary access mechanisms or create
totally new data types.

I'd say from a functionality point of view, it's probably on a par with 7.24
or thereabouts, but the problem is convincing people who are used to RDBMSs
that object-relation extensions have any value. I'm busy climbing that
mountain with a customer right now, and it's very slippery... :o)

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"

[Art S. Kagel]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:40:56 -0500, Obnoxio The Clown wrote:

Obnoxio's assessment is about right. Functionally equivalent to 7.2x with a
very nice event driven 4GL. Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.

Solid reliable, no bells or whistles, nothing special to write home about.

Art S. Kagel

> Dirk Moolman wrote:
>

>> I am getting a "little" frustrated with a guy here that keeps insisting
>> Informix is crap, and Progress is the best database in the world.
>>
>> Anyone who knows Progress & Informix, please send me some stuff Informix can
>> do that Progress can't. I know this is not fair, I just want some backup
>> the next time he tells me Progress is the best.
>>
>> It's either that or I have to shoot him to shut up ...

>
> Shoot him, it's quicker and less stressful for both of you.
>
> In a practical sense, it's difficult to compare them, because Progress has a
> very rich 4GL that is inherently part of of the environment.
>
> Progress's website is so opaque and difficult to find things in, it actually
> make's IBM's look good.
>
> <read, read, read>
>
> OK, well, on the basics, it seems Progress is OK, but they have a pretty
> complete software stack. So they wouldn't make it possible for the database to
> do stuff like hide a screen scrape from someone else's website in the
> database, they'd probably make it available in the middleware stack. I'd also
> be fairly gobsmacked if they could do stuff like allow you to do things like
> implement your own secondary access mechanisms or create totally new data
> types.
>
> I'd say from a functionality point of view, it's probably on a par with 7.24
> or thereabouts, but the problem is convincing people who are used to RDBMSs
> that object-relation extensions have any value. I'm busy climbing that
> mountain with a customer right now, and it's very slippery... :o)
>

[Andrew Hamm]

Dirk Moolman wrote:

> I am getting a "little" frustrated with a guy here that keeps
> insisting Informix is crap, and Progress is the best database in the
> world.
>
> Anyone who knows Progress & Informix, please send me some stuff
> Informix can do that Progress can't. I know this is not fair, I
> just want some backup the next time he tells me Progress is the best.
>
> It's either that or I have to shoot him to shut up ...

"Lock-n-load, boys!"

click-clack

[Mark Townsend]

Art S. Kagel wrote:

> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.

Sigh.

[Mark Townsend]

Art S. Kagel wrote:

> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.

Sigh.

[Obnoxio The Clown]

Mark Townsend wrote:

> Art S. Kagel wrote:
>

>> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
>> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.

>
> Sigh.

Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"

[John Carlson]

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:57:01 +0000, Obnoxio The Clown
<obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Townsend wrote:
>

>> Art S. Kagel wrote:
>>

>>> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
>>> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.

>>
>> Sigh.

>
>Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)

Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One???

[Andrew Hamm]

John Carlson wrote:

>>
>> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)

>
> Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One???

Mark's not a troll, more of a wicked witch living in a gingerbread house,
waiting for small impressionable DBA's to stumble by.

[Mark Townsend]

Obnoxio The Clown wrote:

> Mark Townsend wrote:
>
>

>>Art S. Kagel wrote:
>>
>>

>>>Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
>>>Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.

>>
>>Sigh.

>
>
> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)
>

I was overwhelmed by the inanity of it. Akin to being acted by a man
wielding a ripe piece of fruit.

[Mark Townsend]

Mark Townsend wrote:

> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
>

>> Mark Townsend wrote:
>>
>>

>>> Art S. Kagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
>>>> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sigh.

>>
>>
>>
>> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)
>>

> I was overwhelmed by the inanity of it. Akin to being acted by a man
> wielding a ripe piece of fruit.
>

Speaking of progress (with a little p), anybody checked the TPC-C's
lately ? <Smug satisfied smile>

[Andrew Hamm]

Mark Townsend wrote:

>>

> Speaking of progress (with a little p), anybody checked the TPC-C's
> lately ? <Smug satisfied smile>

No. We're only interested in real-world performance comparisons of our own
applications, for example, on equivalent iron, IDS is about 70% quicker than
Oracle.

[Mark Townsend]

Andrew Hamm wrote:

> Mark Townsend wrote:
>

>>Speaking of progress (with a little p), anybody checked the TPC-C's
>>lately ? <Smug satisfied smile>

>
>
> No. We're only interested in real-world performance comparisons of our own
> applications, for example, on equivalent iron, IDS is about 70% quicker than
> Oracle.
>
>

Bet you did check, but :-p

[John Carlson]

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:27:38 +1100, "Andrew Hamm" <ahamm@mail.com>
wrote:

>John Carlson wrote:

>>>
>>> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)

>>
>> Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One???

>
>Mark's not a troll, more of a wicked witch living in a gingerbread house,
>waiting for small impressionable DBA's to stumble by.
>

OK, thanks for the clarification.....8-) Just gotta remind the
'impressionable DBAs' to remember the bread crumbs.....

[Dirk Moolman]

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Hamm [mailto:ahamm@mail.com]


John Carlson wrote:

>>
>> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)

>
> Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One???
>

>Mark's not a troll, more of a wicked witch living in a gingerbread

house,

>waiting for small impressionable DBA's to stumble by.

I have just the right guy for you ! The one that started this inquiry,
er, I mean the one that made me start this inquiry ......


sending to informix-list

[Impy]

"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:5CZpb.108384$HS4.917548@attbi_s01...

> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:

> > Mark Townsend wrote:
> >
> >

> >>Art S. Kagel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
> >>>Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.
> >>
> >>Sigh.

> >
> >
> > Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)
> >

> I was overwhelmed by the inanity of it. Akin to being *>acted<* by a man
> wielding a ripe piece of fruit.

Attacked...surely?

[Obnoxio The Clown]

John Carlson wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:57:01 +0000, Obnoxio The Clown
> <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>>Mark Townsend wrote:
>>

>>> Art S. Kagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
>>>> Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.
>>>
>>> Sigh.

>>
>>Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)

>
> Are you feeding the trolls, again, oh Obnoxious One???

Damn' tooting!

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"

[Obnoxio The Clown]

Mark Townsend wrote:

> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:

>> Mark Townsend wrote:
>>
>>

>>>Art S. Kagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Technologically it's on a par with OL5.20 or
>>>>Orable, one 'server' task per client on the server.
>>>
>>>Sigh.

>>
>>
>> Is that it? I was expecting something a bit more assertive... :o)
>>

> I was overwhelmed by the inanity of it. Akin to being acted by a man
> wielding a ripe piece of fruit.

"Attacked", Shirley?

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"

[Obnoxio The Clown]

Andrew Hamm wrote:

> Mark Townsend wrote:

>>>

>> Speaking of progress (with a little p), anybody checked the TPC-C's
>> lately ? <Smug satisfied smile>

>
> No. We're only interested in real-world performance comparisons of our own
> applications, for example, on equivalent iron, IDS is about 70% quicker
> than Oracle.

So, God only know how much better IDS must be than DB2...

I hope the troll doesn't bite my hand off!

--
Ciao,
The Obnoxious One

"Ogni uomo mi guarda come se fossi una testa di cazzo"