In case someone doesn't hear from other sources... Microsoft and
Novell have made new agreements to partner and share code. I'm not
sure how much comment is necessary. This just happened and a million
people have already commented in detail about whether this is good or
bad, whether or not this will lead to violations of GPL, and all sorts
of other implications. Get news and commentary here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...61102175508403

Tony Gravagno wrote:
I used to work for Novell in its infancy, about 1979 or 80. George
Canova was the President (and one of the founders of the company) at
the time. This was before Ray Noorda made Novell a name. One of my
younger brothers was an engineer for Novell for many years. To Novell,
Microsoft was anathema...the Anti-everything...the big evil.

This blows me away.

(well, ok...it's easy for me to get blown away nowdays!)

Tony Gravagno wrote:
I used to work for Novell in its infancy, about 1979 or 80. George
Canova was the President (and one of the founders of the company) at
the time. This was before Ray Noorda made Novell a name. One of my
younger brothers was an engineer for Novell for many years. To Novell,
Microsoft was anathema...the Anti-everything...the big evil.

This blows me away.

(well, ok...it's easy for me to get blown away nowdays!)

Tony, could be a real shot in the arm (not going to happen though),
this NT stuff is real trash compared to AIX, but clients hate the
support curve on an AIX implementation; if we even mention it in a demo
we get slammed. Too bad RD will probably take two-three eons to support
another LINUX, just for us old 'pickies'..

Best,

Nick


Tony Gravagno wrote:

NickQ wrote:

You might like to consider OpenQM.

Home Page:

http://www.openqm.com

Google Group:

http://groups.google.com/group/OpenQM?lnk=li

Both Commercial (Windows, Linux, BSD) and GPL (Linux only) licensing
available.

Having used RD and jBase products for many years, OpenQM has really
grabbed my attention.

--
Kevin Powick

Nah Kevin, if we do anything it will be to go to Reality, they are very
close with 12. I have done sample conversions of our very large
application and database from 8 thru 11, have 12 on the way.

We would bring over 4000 seats when we do it.

Looked a OpenQm, not as mature as Reality.

Thanks,

Nick

Kevin Powick wrote:

Nick,

Can you elaborate on this? What are your metrics on something like
maturity?

Joe

NickQ wrote:

I can understand that you may have a comfort level with a particular
product.

As Joe asked, "can you elaborate"? What is it that OpenQM lacks that
is critical to your applications?

I don't doubt you. I'm just interested to know what Reality has that QM
does not.. If they're really great features, maybe we can petition for
them to be added to QM.

Regards,

--
Kevin Powick

"Kevin Powick" wrote:

I won't address features because I simply don't know at this point,
but I would like to comment on product maturity from a business
perspective. Once again it may all come down to 'marketing'.

Maturity has a lot to do with perception.
- Reality has been around for decades, LadyBridge for just a couple
years.
- Reality has a large base of users, Martin doesn't tell anyone about
his installed sites to establish QM as being credible for live sites
larger than a couple users. I'm not saying QM is not credible or
capable, just that the perception is still that it's being used by
open source hackers, small shops, and as trial-ware by those who are
frustrated with their current providers.
- Reality has a staff. Martin insists there is a development team
behind QM but the only staff that it looks like Ladybridge has are
Martin and his wife. Again, this is a marketing perception that isn't
being countered.
- Reality is up to release 12, QM is at release 2. I have no faith in
such numbers but when considering product maturity one can't deny that
Reality at least has quite a bit more time invested.

QM continues to gain popularity in response to the never-ending
business mistakes being made by its competitors. That doesn't mean it
doesn't stand well on its own but it means at the moment that people
are looking at QM as a business alternative and not for its technical
prowess. (Do you want your mate to love you for all of the things
that you are, or because a relationship with you isn't as bad as those
in the past?) Ladybridge has earned a reputation for being a good and
responsive company, but that's not yet enough to encourage VARs and
end-users to adopt the software en masse - the software needs to
compete on its own and independently of its parent company. That
might be tough for some people to understand, but I'm saying the three
factors that QM has going for it right now are Martin, OpenSource, and
excellent pricing, and outside of that the product has yet to prove
itself to the MV market at large as a tool worthy of full migrations.
If it _has_ proved itself, Ladybridge isn't providing any evidence.
It's no surprise that the only (visible?) fault of this MV DBMS vendor
is a lack of aggressive product marketing.

If there are any idiots (intentionally strong word) who translate this
into anything negative about the above mentioned software, people, or
companies, the translation is incorrect. I'm sick of people twisting
my words. I have high regard for the software, people, or companies
mentioned above and if I didn't think it was all good I wouldn't be
pointing out how I think it could possibly be made better.

T

Kevin,

When our Software is evaluated by a potential client, these clients are
Billion Dollar multi-national reinsurance companies, the environment
upon which we run and the database wherein we will store the client's
data are and extremely important part of the process.

Our 'functionality' is never, in my 20+ years experience withm our
product in our marketplace, questioned. We do it all, and have the
application maturity to address every question the client asks.

As an end-user oriented application my job, when I market the product,
is to 'remove potential objections'. I can do that with an ODBC
compliant Pick flavour such as Reality.

If we were to leave PICK Systems (I refuse to compare RD with what we
had before RD) I will only do so with either a rewrite to an IBM
U-Division product or Reality. That path gives our company the best
chance for future success.

SInce our future marketplace is in Europe, doing it with a British
company makes sense. Especially since they have a development/support
staff of over 150 dedicated to MV products.

Thanks for the input and comments. I have downloaded and looked at QM
for a stand-alone application based upon a Module of our prime product.
Marketing evaluation led to not pursuing that line.

Nick



As to the Linux move, Reality is supported on Red Hart as well
Tony Gravagno wrote: