| Subject | IBDI - Progress? |
|---|---|
| Author | Kevin Lawrence |
| Post date | 2000-01-16T05:25:16Z |
The following were meant to be comments for Jason's survey, but I kept getting an error when I tried to post (with or without my diatribe).
Please don't get miffed by any of the following. I don't want to start a fight here: this post is meant as constructive criticism, and not to offend. I have every motivation to have IB succeed, prosper, and grow. My entire business is based on IB/Delphi, and I LOVE these tools. I mean it. I am evangelical about the power and elegance of them. Going back to Oracle Developer or Microsoft Visual Basic would be like trading in my ADSL line for a 14.4k modem.
While I realize that the IBDI is constrained by current events, (I am sure there are people involved who would lend great credibility, but are unable to publicly participate) I am disappointed/uninspired to date with the current situation. My perception, limited by not being one of the "inner circle", is that the IBDI does not have the "parts" to effectively manage or negotiate either the transition from ISC to OSS, or the life after OSS.
That being said, my perceptions are:
1) There does not appear to be a "Linus": a personality with the experience with the product knowledge, business experience/savvy, leadership, relationship with Borland, and brutal Machiavellian focus/commitment to lead the OSS effort.
2) There does not appear to be a "Steve Jobs": IB needs an evangelist. A marketer that is not afraid to shout from the rooftops (or whisper on all the street corners) why IB is the only possible solution for the middle 80% of database applications. Someone who can communicate the benefits related to: architecture, stability, design, performance, TCO, and not be embarrassed by questioning the established dogma.
3) There does not appear to be a "Marketer", or a person with the industry media contacts to get the message out. IB was not even mentioned/considered in the last PC Magazine database review: who will:
- position IB for consideration and organize the technical effort to support the next review,
- route the "IB Success Stories" (the little database that could?) with the industry "mavens" (Dvorak and Co.)
- get IB on the radar screen of Fortune 1000, by getting the ear of Gartner Group analysts
This is the implementation side of the Steve Jobs character. Marketing doesn't define reality, it can certainly improve it.
4) IBDI must, IMO, have the following people on board:
Paul Beach - can he be Linus?
Bill K - Were IB 6.0 to follow in a timely manner, with substantive technical/functional improvements, it would go far establish momentum and credibility: I think BK is key to this.
Ann H - I really think she would be a great "architectural design" asset, and a calming influence when the fights break out. When AH talks, everyone seems to stop and listen.
5) There does not appear to be a connection with the following organizations (in descending order of importance):
- Microsoft
- Red Hat (Caldera, Corel)
- Novell
- Sun
6) Where's the money? This can probably be done on the cheap, but probably not.
7) I am worried about the inevitable IBO/IBX/BDE fight, especially WRT to maintaining and improving cross platform connectivity and development. IBO seems so much more mature/powerful, but can it port to Linux development tools? I am concerned about continued access to the BDE, and the Intersolv ODBC driver.
8) Call To Arms: I know it is important to get the basics right, but the email traffic I get from IBDI paints a picture of a disjointed, poorly informed group that is not a position of strength WRT managing how IB is released to OSS. We are the light bulb, not the laser, the mob, not the army. Carpe Diem. Let's pick a head guy/girl, stop mucking about with philosophy and trite examinations of licenses, assign some jobs, and get on with it. If we are going to be a competent organization, one that is the ONLY choice for the future of IB, make it so. We need to put together a professional structure, negotiating strategy, and transition/development/marketing plan [web site, media releases], and do it all soon.
Kevin (Fire retardent suit on, helmet on, mouth-guard in)
Please don't get miffed by any of the following. I don't want to start a fight here: this post is meant as constructive criticism, and not to offend. I have every motivation to have IB succeed, prosper, and grow. My entire business is based on IB/Delphi, and I LOVE these tools. I mean it. I am evangelical about the power and elegance of them. Going back to Oracle Developer or Microsoft Visual Basic would be like trading in my ADSL line for a 14.4k modem.
While I realize that the IBDI is constrained by current events, (I am sure there are people involved who would lend great credibility, but are unable to publicly participate) I am disappointed/uninspired to date with the current situation. My perception, limited by not being one of the "inner circle", is that the IBDI does not have the "parts" to effectively manage or negotiate either the transition from ISC to OSS, or the life after OSS.
That being said, my perceptions are:
1) There does not appear to be a "Linus": a personality with the experience with the product knowledge, business experience/savvy, leadership, relationship with Borland, and brutal Machiavellian focus/commitment to lead the OSS effort.
2) There does not appear to be a "Steve Jobs": IB needs an evangelist. A marketer that is not afraid to shout from the rooftops (or whisper on all the street corners) why IB is the only possible solution for the middle 80% of database applications. Someone who can communicate the benefits related to: architecture, stability, design, performance, TCO, and not be embarrassed by questioning the established dogma.
3) There does not appear to be a "Marketer", or a person with the industry media contacts to get the message out. IB was not even mentioned/considered in the last PC Magazine database review: who will:
- position IB for consideration and organize the technical effort to support the next review,
- route the "IB Success Stories" (the little database that could?) with the industry "mavens" (Dvorak and Co.)
- get IB on the radar screen of Fortune 1000, by getting the ear of Gartner Group analysts
This is the implementation side of the Steve Jobs character. Marketing doesn't define reality, it can certainly improve it.
4) IBDI must, IMO, have the following people on board:
Paul Beach - can he be Linus?
Bill K - Were IB 6.0 to follow in a timely manner, with substantive technical/functional improvements, it would go far establish momentum and credibility: I think BK is key to this.
Ann H - I really think she would be a great "architectural design" asset, and a calming influence when the fights break out. When AH talks, everyone seems to stop and listen.
5) There does not appear to be a connection with the following organizations (in descending order of importance):
- Microsoft
- Red Hat (Caldera, Corel)
- Novell
- Sun
6) Where's the money? This can probably be done on the cheap, but probably not.
7) I am worried about the inevitable IBO/IBX/BDE fight, especially WRT to maintaining and improving cross platform connectivity and development. IBO seems so much more mature/powerful, but can it port to Linux development tools? I am concerned about continued access to the BDE, and the Intersolv ODBC driver.
8) Call To Arms: I know it is important to get the basics right, but the email traffic I get from IBDI paints a picture of a disjointed, poorly informed group that is not a position of strength WRT managing how IB is released to OSS. We are the light bulb, not the laser, the mob, not the army. Carpe Diem. Let's pick a head guy/girl, stop mucking about with philosophy and trite examinations of licenses, assign some jobs, and get on with it. If we are going to be a competent organization, one that is the ONLY choice for the future of IB, make it so. We need to put together a professional structure, negotiating strategy, and transition/development/marketing plan [web site, media releases], and do it all soon.
Kevin (Fire retardent suit on, helmet on, mouth-guard in)