Re: Press release: BookMasters go live on OpenQM

"Peter McMurray" wrote:

However, far more important is the fact that QM makes an effort to keep up
with modern developments whereas TL refuse to answer questions on the topic.

Huh? Since when? Name one way in which one can connect with QM that
cannot be used with D3. QMClient and D3 Class Library are
functionally equivalent so we can take them off the table.
Third-party addons don't count. QM has no inbound or outbound SQL
interface and D3 has both. D3 supports Java and SOAP via
vendor-supported components - Ladybridge supports neither.

RD at least tried to bring .NET to the MV market. They failed
dismally in part because they felt a need to educate the prospect
audience on what the technology is before they could introduce their
solution. Ladybridge doesn't support a .NET managed provider.

Through the years VARs and end-users have insisted that PS/RD/TL keep
up with their choice of backup media, including 1/2", several
generations of 1/4", 8mm, DLT, and whatever else has come along.
Further, not only must new devices be supported but old ones must be
supported as well. Martin doesn't have to worry about such things.

Further, D3 supports transaction logging and inter-system hot-backups.
What's in QM?... This is from the product documentation: "QM does not
provide any special backup and restore utilities but relies instead on
use of standard operating system level backup tools."

(Correction welcome on this) D3 supports the creation of (jBase-like)
Windows executables with a simple option on the BASIC compile verb. I
don't believe QM supports this. D3 also allows invocation of COM
objects from BASIC. To my knowledge QM does not. However, QM does
support OOP for BASIC which D3 natively does not.

So who is keeping up with what? QM and Ladybridge deserve a lot of
credit for many things. But "keeping up with modern developments" is
not one of them. Anything that you can plugin to QM with external
tools you can plugin to D3 right now - like PHP, Java, C++, etc -
that's not a sign that the vendor is keeping up with anything.

What gets my goat is when people go to QM (or some RDBMS) and then
bathe in the glory of "new" features (or perhaps performance) that
they could have had with D3. If you're going to argue in favor of a
platform, all I ask is that you get your facts straight. I'll be
happy to argue in favor of QM (it's good software!) but if I'm going
to take the position I'll do some research or at least let you know
where I'm not 100% sure.


Whether TG likes Vista or not

Rather than cite my opinions of Vista, perhaps it would be better for
you to quote the Microsoft Windows 7 web page: "After talking with our
small business customers, we realized all had a very similar wish list
for Windows 7. Over and over again, you asked for reliability,
application compatibility, safety and security solutions, hardware and
device compatibility, and protection from viruses. That is the
starting point we used to build Windows 7 to fit your needs."

Read it for yourself:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/small-business/windows-7.aspx
They're repeating "We listened..." to reaffirm that they finally get
the message that people don't want Vista.

Recall that I've posted links with Microsoft stating openly on more
than one occasion that Vista was a mistake and that it will be
replaced. And here is Windows 7. What more will it take before you
get it?

all new Windows sales use it and it is the basis of Server 2008
and Windows 7 so without these platforms D3 is sagging.

I agree that TL should have produced D3 over Vista - supporting a new
major platform is simply the right thing to do. However, there are
two points on this:

First, a DBMS is a server product and Vista has never been defined by
Microsoft as a server platform. It has Always been defined as a
workstation platform. Therefore, any DBMS over Vista should not be
used in a multiuser environment. That's why Microsoft has Windows
Server 2008 to replace Windows Server 2003. So how about a
compromise?... TL is wrong for not supporting Vista, but you're wrong
for asking for it. ;)

Second, to say Windows 7 is based on Vista is to say a Porche is based
on the Model T. It's true of course but the modern vehicle overcomes
issues of the predecessor, and there are obvious reasons why the Model
T is no longer in production. New development for automobiles would
be based on the Porche, not the Model T ... as anyone porting a
product now should be targeting Windows 7 and not Vista, which has
obvious faults that made development and deployment difficult.


I see people using Centos which D3 walked away from, how long does the list
need to get.

They haven't "walked away" from CentOS. I've clarified this before:
http://forums.rainingdata.com/index.php?showtopic=1605&st=0&#entry5567
And see Post#7 here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.pick/browse_frm/thread/4b81528b1adbeac5/c4368a33573dcb61?#c4368a33573dcb61
And here is a comment from Robert Burke, Support Director at TL:
http://forums.rainingdata.com/index.php?showtopic=1234&st=0&#entry3970

That said, QM does support more platforms than D3, and Martin gets
points for that. But as indicated above, QM doesn't need to support
the hardware nor the legacy of features that are required by the
existing D3 user base. If you (D3 users) want TL to support more
platforms, then you need to stop insisting that they support all of
the old gizmos that Martin won't support either.

Again, TL has made a lot of decisions that we don't like, many based
on limitations of the legacy D3 environment. But when you cite an
issue about this vendor or any other, please be sure you have your
facts straight. Do you really want to win an argument by misleading
people?


We cannot see any development in web standardisation, everyone
is expected to do their own thing without any assistance.

And about this Ladybridge is doing... what?

Here is an open door: What would you like any DBMS vendor to do to
help you with your development?

I expect the answer is : "do everything automatically for me so that I
can compete with modern competitors without having to learn anything
new - and I want it free." Dream on. While you're waiting for that
to happen your competitors and prospects continue to pass you by.
It's time to consider a different approach.


Plus the latest escapades in the rap market and the press release that
puts two non starter products ahead of the bread and butter lines that keep
them in business gives one cause to wonder.

If the DBMS was their bread and butter, they wouldn't need to look for
alternative mechanisms to generate revenue. Their fault is that they
don't know how to run a DBMS company, it's not their marketing for
non-DBMS products. You need to separate the two. :)

Their advertising for another product has nothing to do with the DBMS.
Similarly QM users shouldn't be bothered that Ladybridge provides
training for U2, tools to help U2 developers, or application software
....um, right? Perhaps the difference is that Ladybridge just has the
good taste to not use rap music to advertise their non QM offerings.
Perhaps anything that Ladybridge does to generate income to help
support development on QM is a good thing? Perhaps the same might
hold true for TL and D3?


The news that they have lost the vast knowledge of Rick Davies is another
serious worry.

The man has been out of there for about a year and a half - and you're
just noticing? What about the vast knowledge of key engineers who are
no longer there? _That's_ what you should be worried about.

One other point about a switch to QM is that it gives people an opportunity
to catch up with the major problem shifting from D3, which is in my opinion
case sensitivity, at a very reasonable outlay.

I'm sorry, you're saying changing to QM is good because it supports
case sensitivity, which is the problem that D3 doesn't have but other
platforms do?

Too much outta me.
T
.

Loading