Re: OpenQM vs. Everything Else

#41

Bill, I agree with you completely.

Would you then agree that if DesignBais were to partner with OpenQM and
present a low-cost, modern interface it would be a revolution?
Jeff

Quote:

One of the most difficult issues with MV is that non-MV users find it
extremely frustrating, and not worth the trouble, to interface with it;
there doesn't seem to be much benefit over SQL Server or MySql. As a
quasi-experienced MV developer, interfacing with the U2 products, by far
the
largest mvDbms supplier with 85% of the MV market, is a miserable
experience. It's hard to understand how anyone from IBM can believe
non-MV
developers will migrate or begin new development using U2 (for instance
many
MV people are frustrated with the many UniData quirks that are simply
idiosyncrasies with no rhyme or reason). IMHO, of course, this is one of
the two major impediments to MV development and enhancement; the other
being
cost, of course.

#42

"Jeff Caspari" <FDFDFDFD (AT) sneakernet (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Quote:

Bill, I agree with you completely.

Would you then agree that if DesignBais were to partner with OpenQM and
present a low-cost, modern interface it would be a revolution?
Jeff

But not a very well attended one...
Bobj

Quote:

One of the most difficult issues with MV is that non-MV users find it
extremely frustrating, and not worth the trouble, to interface with it;
there doesn't seem to be much benefit over SQL Server or MySql. As a
quasi-experienced MV developer, interfacing with the U2 products, by far
the
largest mvDbms supplier with 85% of the MV market, is a miserable
experience. It's hard to understand how anyone from IBM can believe
non-MV
developers will migrate or begin new development using U2 (for instance
many
MV people are frustrated with the many UniData quirks that are simply
idiosyncrasies with no rhyme or reason). IMHO, of course, this is one of
the two major impediments to MV development and enhancement; the other
being
cost, of course.

#43

Jeff Caspari wrote:

Quote:

Bill, I agree with you completely.

Would you then agree that if DesignBais were to partner with OpenQM and
present a low-cost, modern interface it would be a revolution?
Jeff

Jeff, remember Commercial OpemQM comes will Accuterm. As far as an

interface (user or application), it can pretty well get the job done.
I'm using it now to create an HL7 interface with EMR system. It has
OLE/Active-X to interface with the desktop. It can spit out MS office
files all day long. The GUI is point and click for the user. You can
make WEB Services with QM and PHP all day long. Have you checked out
Toms php project http://openqm.blackflute.com/ at the bottom of the
page.

Patrick, <;=)

Quote:

One of the most difficult issues with MV is that non-MV users find it
extremely frustrating, and not worth the trouble, to interface with it;
there doesn't seem to be much benefit over SQL Server or MySql. As a
quasi-experienced MV developer, interfacing with the U2 products, by far

the

largest mvDbms supplier with 85% of the MV market, is a miserable
experience. It's hard to understand how anyone from IBM can believe

non-MV

developers will migrate or begin new development using U2 (for instance

many

MV people are frustrated with the many UniData quirks that are simply
idiosyncrasies with no rhyme or reason). IMHO, of course, this is one of
the two major impediments to MV development and enhancement; the other

being

cost, of course.

#44

I would agree that pairing a good GUI development environment with a MV
database would seem to be a great idea...

However, it would need a gui based database designer and a good databasic
editor... I don't know if DesignBais has either of these cos I've not used
it... Interfacing with "standard" development platforms (visual studio
etc) must also be a must...

Somebody... please.. go do it! Save Pick!!!

Simon
"Jeff Caspari" <FDFDFDFD (AT) sneakernet (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Quote:

Bill, I agree with you completely.

Would you then agree that if DesignBais were to partner with OpenQM and
present a low-cost, modern interface it would be a revolution?
Jeff

One of the most difficult issues with MV is that non-MV users find it
extremely frustrating, and not worth the trouble, to interface with it;
there doesn't seem to be much benefit over SQL Server or MySql. As a
quasi-experienced MV developer, interfacing with the U2 products, by far
the
largest mvDbms supplier with 85% of the MV market, is a miserable
experience. It's hard to understand how anyone from IBM can believe
non-MV
developers will migrate or begin new development using U2 (for instance
many
MV people are frustrated with the many UniData quirks that are simply
idiosyncrasies with no rhyme or reason). IMHO, of course, this is one of
the two major impediments to MV development and enhancement; the other
being
cost, of course.

#45

"None" <MartinPhillips (AT) ladybridge (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

A few answers...

2. We have a version of QM running here on a Mac under OSX. The only
reason that we have not released it is that we have zero expertise in
how to construct the GUI installer. Having to drop down to a root
terminal session to install a Mac product is not very impressive. All
hints accepted!

Sorry about coming late in the game on this. But there is an installer
builder that comes with OSX. Here are a couple of pages about it that I
found helpful when writing my installers:

PackageMaker and Installer Features:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta..._features.html

About Packages:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...001761-TPXREF2

Software Distribution:
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...ion/index.html

-Bob Coleman/PDX OR

#46

Gentlemen, please forgive but I'm seeing here exactly the same sort of
rhetoric that has gotten us nowhere for years: If only...
- we had a GUI...
- low cost...
- available for OS this or DBMS that...
- integrated...
- with an editor...
- and maintain dictionaries...

There are numerous products in the market that match all, most, or
some of these criteria. What are you waiting for???
D3 Class Library, UniObjects, Intercall, mv.NET, PDP.NET, Visage,
DesignBais, WebWizard, FlashCONNECT, Coyote, ATGUI, Symbion (based on
ATGUI), Nucleus (based on ATGUI), SB+, OSMOSiS, OpenInsight, Omnis
Studio with or without mvDesigner - and others ...

Perhaps the problem is simple lack of understanding about what these
products include (BASIC or Dict editor, etc) how they fit in any given
architecture, and what the real deployment costs are. You must do the
research - or pay some R&D company to do it for you.

This
information has all been available for years but it seems like people
are waiting for it to come to them in a way that makes so much sense
that it will be easy to make a decision. There is no easy answer
except to just start somewhere and move forward. People are afraid of
making the wrong decisions, or incurring too much of a learning curve,
and many of you have let over a decade go by in this state of fear.

Let's get over this search for the perfect platform which is never
going to happen. You can put a GUI on any MV platform, many of the
tools out there now are quite good. It accomplishes nothing to
pretend that development would proceed if only some specific
combination of tools could be made available for some specific
platform.

T

#47

"Jeff Caspari" <FDFDFDFD (AT) sneakernet (DOT) com.invalid> wrote in
news:bL_Lf.1233$%a2.605@trndny05:

Quote:

Bullseye. Pick is the means to an end, not the end. The sale is the
end.

Regards,
Joe

Actually Joe, the sale is just the beginning. It's at that point you
can help to make your client's business flourish using the
extraordinary power and flexibility of your solution.

Jeff

Perhaps I shouldn't have stated it that way; I was referring to Pick being
the means to an end of a development process, which was the successful
sale of one's product.

Of course, once the sale has been made, there is the responsibility of
establishing a long-lasting relationship that's profitable for both. Kind
of like marriage, eh?

Regards,
Joe

#48

"Ross Ferris" <rossf (AT) stamina (DOT) com.au> wrote in
news:1140909456.215859.114070 (AT) p10g2000cwp (DOT) googlegroups.com:

Quote:

Joe,

I believe your synopsis is quiote accurate. If you look at any (ALL?)
of the successful "pick" VARS, they don't concentrate (or even) mention
the database - nor the operating system, printer brand or network
cards.

These are all "incidental" to what they have to provide, which is a
solution to a real need.

Exactly - it's the app.

Quote:

I was recently talking to an IT manager who said that when he first
entered the business and discovered that it was running on "Pick", he
made it his mission to move the company onto a more mainstream solution
(the market in question is actually dominated by "pick", but that is
another story)

After 18 months of investigation (external consultants - the full gig &
6 figure price tag) he came to the realization that the solution he had
was built for his niche, and had features and facilities that the
mainstream products simply couldn't match.

It would be interesting to know the guy's reason for wanting to dump his
Pick...

Quote:

Of course the ongoing challenge for these guys is to stay on top. None
of us (that sell software solutions) compete with the "mainstream" - we
compete with other companies who produce software to fill the same need
that we have identified.

Ross, I'm just curious - what would you consider 'mainstream' that you
don't compete with?

Quote:

If you fill the void well, AND GET THE MESSAGE OUT, you will be
successful. If you just fill the void, then you may have a comfortable
lifestyle for a while. If you fill some of the void but have gaps that
are growing, you are probably already in a "retirement" mentality - OR
YOU NEED TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT THE SAND!!

LOL! True. But what you've said applies to everything. There's nothing
Pick-specific in that.

Quote:

There are opportunities aplenty out there. We are seeing software
companies change the way they are doing business, with hosted solutions
delivered via the internet driving growth at the bottom end of the
market, allowing customers that have traditionally been seen as "too
small" suddenly coming into the net.

Another great thing about the Internet - it levels the playing field a
bit.

Quote:

What a great story - start off with a hosted service using the same
software that the big guys use for a low monthly fee. As you grow, you
can move the system inhouse OR continue to concentrate on core
competancies and let someone else look after things like backup, system
maintenance, disaster recovery etc etc etc

You know, it is hard to tell from looking at a desktop icon if the
underlying application is driven by Oracle, or QM. An ex-army captain
that used to work for us used to say "If it quacks like a duck,
awaddles like a duck and looks like a duck, people are NOT going to ask
'Is it a Duck?'"

Quack! Quack!!

Right. As long as it gets the job done...

Regards,
Joe

#49

Respectfully my brother, I disagree. If you were correct there wouldn't be
a pent up frustration or demand (or a need for this thread).

Cost is a huge factor and perhaps I should only speak about my own
situation. We simply can't continue to pay high license fees for the DB and
add the additional costs for some of the tools out there.

Support is the biggest factor. Since we are completely unfamiliar with
these products and how to use them to convert our enterprise-level solution
a significant amount of very responsive support is necessary. That excludes
anyone who is not able to provide real-time answers, preferably from a human
you can get on the phone (from USA EST).

Maturity of the product is another factor. I'm speaking about stability and
reliability, both from the DB and GUI tools.

Additionally there can't be too many pieces in the mix. It increases cost,
learning time and ultimately kills motivation.

DesignBais and OpenQM seem to have all of this. If a deal can be made to
present this in a cost effective way I think it is the answer to our quest.

Jeff

"Tony Gravagno" <g6q3x9lu53001 (AT) sneakemail (DOT) com.invalid> wrote

Quote:

Gentlemen, please forgive but I'm seeing here exactly the same sort of
rhetoric that has gotten us nowhere for years: If only...
- we had a GUI...
- low cost...
- available for OS this or DBMS that...
- integrated...
- with an editor...
- and maintain dictionaries...

There are numerous products in the market that match all, most, or
some of these criteria. What are you waiting for???
D3 Class Library, UniObjects, Intercall, mv.NET, PDP.NET, Visage,
DesignBais, WebWizard, FlashCONNECT, Coyote, ATGUI, Symbion (based on
ATGUI), Nucleus (based on ATGUI), SB+, OSMOSiS, OpenInsight, Omnis
Studio with or without mvDesigner - and others ...

Perhaps the problem is simple lack of understanding about what these
products include (BASIC or Dict editor, etc) how they fit in any given
architecture, and what the real deployment costs are. You must do the
research - or pay some R&D company to do it for you.

This
information has all been available for years but it seems like people
are waiting for it to come to them in a way that makes so much sense
that it will be easy to make a decision. There is no easy answer
except to just start somewhere and move forward. People are afraid of
making the wrong decisions, or incurring too much of a learning curve,
and many of you have let over a decade go by in this state of fear.

Let's get over this search for the perfect platform which is never
going to happen. You can put a GUI on any MV platform, many of the
tools out there now are quite good. It accomplishes nothing to
pretend that development would proceed if only some specific
combination of tools could be made available for some specific
platform.

T

#50

Joe wrote:
<SNIP>

Quote:

It would be interesting to know the guy's reason for wanting to dump his
Pick...

Perception that "Pick" was last years technology, old & dated

Quote:

Of course the ongoing challenge for these guys is to stay on top. None
of us (that sell software solutions) compete with the "mainstream" - we
compete with other companies who produce software to fill the same need
that we have identified.

Ross, I'm just curious - what would you consider 'mainstream' that you
don't compete with?

My point was that the "mainstream" (whatever that happens to be) is
really just an accumulation of other software companies that are
competing for the same business. "The mainsteam" for many people is
just a convenient grab bag for "the competition"

That said, I would consider a product like "quickbooks" (yes, THAT
QuickBooks) to be a mainstream product (= widely known & accepted in
this case) that we don't compete with - by choice!

A little annecdote that some of you may find "interesting" whilst
talking about the "mainstream" Juggernaught

How many of you have heard stories about, or been involved with, people
moving data OUT of a multi-valued database INTO something like SQL
Server for processing with OLAP or Reporting Services?

We have recently completed a project for a large, publicly listed chain
of Ladies Fasion Stores where they are exporting data OUT OF an SQL
Server farm INTO a multi-valued database for analysis & reporting
purposes!! (yes, we "cheat" and use Visage :-)

"Mainstream" is in the eye of the beholder, and "results" have a way of
elevating (?) you into the "mainstream". We are now looking at
"opportunities" with a global hotel management chain who have seen our
solution in operation ... funny how fast things can move in the
"mainstream"