On 18/03/11 22:48, fft2...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 3/18/2011 3:34:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> george.l...@aptsolutions.net writes:
>
>
>> On 18/03/2011 21:49, "fft2...@aol.com" <fft2...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In a message dated 3/18/2011 1:02:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>>> george.l...@aptsolutions.net writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes be sure to throw an ad hominem attack in there to try to convince
>> the
>>> reading audience not to listen.
>>
>> Not sure what element of that was 'ad hominem', but if that's how you want
>> to take it that is up to you.
>
>
> The element that says "you"... "you"... some personality trait "you are
> perverse" "you have an axe to grind".
> That's ad hominem. If you have an issue with my argument, than address the
> argument, not my person.
>
Simple answer - it's YOUR question, so he was answering YOU.
I do notice there doesn't seem to be much support for your position
though...
>>>>
>>>> You clearly have no idea what Rocket does for the user group and
>> despite
>>>> being told that we can't take money but instead Rocket provides other
>>>> resources with which we are very happy you still say 'where's the
>>>> financial
>>>> support?'
>>>
>>> Asked and answered. A group doesn't need to "take" money, in order to
>>> "use" money. Address that.
>>> Why doesn't Rocket have a budget earmarked "Money to be used to support
>> the
>>> U2 user group's activities?"
>>> Why?
>>>
I'll tell you why. Because we are an INTERNATIONAL group. What on earth
would we DO with the money? And, very importantly, who would SPEND it?
There's 9 board members, spread all over the world. I can't remember the
spread when I was on the board, but at 50 miles apart Brian and me were
VERY VERY VERY close. One of the big problems was even finding a time
for the conference call because it was the middle of the night for some,
the middle of the working day for others, and - conveniently for some -
just after close of business for them.
At the end of the day, the board DIDN'T WANT money, because we had no
mechanism for spending it, and couldn't see any way that would work to
set up such a mechanism. If you've got any better ideas than we had, I'm
sure the current board would be delighted to know!
>>
>> Why do you think Rocket doesn't have a budget earmarked for user group
>> activities? You clearly have no idea what involvement they have in their
>> user group.
>
> Again it's not about their "involvement" only about their "financial"
> involvement.
>
And you haven't answered George's question - you clearly didn't read it.
"Why do you think Rocket doesn't have a budget?". I certainly read into
that the implication that Rocket DOES have a budget, and spends it on
supporting the group (I'm out of the loop now, so I can't speak for the
current board).
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's be clear about this - the support that we have asked for has been
>>>> provided. There is nothing that we are being held back from doing due
>> to
>>>> lack of support from Rocket.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you need to ask for more. Clearly the current strategy is not
>>> working.
>>>
>> Why ask for more, what would we do with it? What activities do you think
>> the user group should be doing that are restricted by lack of money? We
>> are a user group, not a body dedicated to marketing a technology.
>>
>
> Outreach. Outreach. and Outreach.
>
Fine. What are YOU doing to do outreach? What this group needs is
PEOPLE, not money. Stop telling OTHER PEOPLE what THEY should do, and do
it yourself. Ask for help if you need it, but don't EXPECT anything more
than moral support - the chances are the board is overcommitted
themselves and have nothing of themselves left to give!
>>>>
>>>> What the group needs is not support from Rocket, we have that, it is
>> the
>>>> active participation of U2 users willing to put their time where their
>>>> mouths are and contribute to what the group is doing. If you want to
>>>> contribute start putting some ideas forward and volunteering time to
>> put
>>>> them into action.
>>>
>>> Sure let's continue a strategy that doesn't work. That is a great
>>> marketing approach.
>>>
>>> On your next point, I volunteer more time to promote MV than most. I'm
>> not
>>> willing at all, to promote Rocket at the expense of other MV Vendors, as
>> a
>>> volunteer with no support from Rocket themselves.
>>>
Have you asked Rocket for support?
>>> Clearly you have no idea what I do, or what I've been doing.
>>> Maybe you should figure that out first, before you go spouting off about
>>> what you think I should be doing.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea who you are, you hide behind a meaningless name -
>> ft2...@aol.com - you could be anyone. OK, so you don't want to promote
>> Rocket, let's remember that this is a U2 user group we are talking about.
>> It's not a Pick user group, an MV user group, a jbase user group, an
>> Intersystems user group. It is U2, that is Rocket and Rocket support
>> their
>> own user group.
>>
>> It sounds to me like you are someone whose involvement in MV has a bias
>> towards the non-U2 side, that is your choice but have you discussed with
>> anyone at Rocket what their strategy is? Do you have any information
>> about
>> what they are doing?
>>
>> U2 is sold OEM, license numbers are growing, revenues are growing, ISVs
>> are
>> prospering. OK, so there are less companies doing their own in house
>> development, but that is the way the market is moving. Today it is
>> increasingly about selling applications, not databases or development
>> tools
>> and as a specialist at selling OEM that is good for Rocket and U2. So you
>> think it's a strategy that doesn't work, well that's your choice, but you
>> probably have no sight of sales figures, no idea of licenses sold, no
>> information on which to make that judgment.
>>
>
> To your claim that "license numbers are growing" I have to respond
> {{fact}}.
> I've seen no evidence of that. What's your evidence.
> If you want to demonstrate your claims, than do so with sources.
> Anyone can make claims. I can claim just as easily that everything you've
> said is exactly upside-down.
>
> Claims are not worth the air into which they are propelled.
>
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the evidence I have
can be summed up as "IBM was surprised how vigorous U2 was when they
bought it almost by mistake".
I'm sure you don't remember the takeover by Ardent of Informix. But if
you read between the lines, that's what happened - okay, Ardent shares
got turned into Informix ones. But 6 months later it was the Informix
board that was let go, and ALL the "head honcho" posts were filled with
Ardent people. IBM reported that the U2 division was *consistently*
recording double-digit percent growth. Yes I know they didn't publicise
it very much, but why would the DB2 division want to trumpet the success
of its red-headed step child? Especially as it was the only part of the
business with that sort of growth! I don't know how things have changed
with Rocket, but I don't see why they should have.
At the end of the day, anybody can *claim* what they like. But I'd trust
George over you any day.
Cheers,
Wol (Founder U2UG member. Member of the Founding Board)
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
