MSM-Workstation: Last Farewell?
by Chris
Bonnici
MSM-Workstation v2.0 caused a stir in the M world. Not only
was this product an innovative way with which to develop M standalone applications that
could be distributed royalty free, but it provided M developers the incentive to move to
GUI programming. Even though there are other GUI tools on the market, no one integrated
with Micronetics database as tightly as this product. Another factor is that the
GUIness feels like an extension of M. Topping all was Micronetics decision to
provide the full version for free. The queries and feedback weve had (and
Micronetics can confirm this) is proof of the enthusiasm surrounding this product.
Micronetics demonstrated its commitment to the product by working hard to improve it. For
example, new features appeared in the final release that were not present in the Beta. In
many commercial development projects once a product is feature closed, nothing new will
make it into that version. Micronetics worked doubly hard to correct bugs while at the
same time adding functionality.
Workstation is made up of two components; the C coded M
engine and the GUI front end. The front end was developed with workstation itself (much
like C compilers being written in C). Both products today belong to InterSystems. Over the
past week, InterSystems laid off Micronetics personnel and hit hard are those assigned to
Workstation. We had said that Micronetics had a long term plan for Workstation, which,
over a period of time would have paid interest, but InterSystems does not seem to think
the same. InterSystems is betting everything on Caché and the company has never been
focused on the low end of the market. Besides, InterSystems could calculate that this baby
has not been given the time to evolve and dropping it will only hurt the bottom line a
little (the net of which could end up being a profit).
So whats in stock for Workstation? There are two
possible destinies:
- Let it die a natural death. The GUI market is developing
rapidly and as many of us know (from the slow route M took to get into this arena) the
product will probably die due to lack of further evolution. This path will not be looked
upon very kindly by the M world. On the other hand, InterSystems can use this as an
indirect signal to market that its not wise to go with other companies.
- Place the GUI front-end source into public domain (as Sun
has done with Java). The M engine would also be made available in compiled form with
information on how to hook to it. Eventually InterSystems would update the engine allowing
one to remotely hook onto Caché databases.
Option 1 is a steel reinforced concrete wall. Dead-end.
There are numerous benefits for InterSystems in going with
option 2. Primarily, this approach will reassure the M world that even though it might not
consider a product worth developing itself, it is not abandoning the product. It will also
soften some of the criticism and fears that this acquisition has brought with it. It might
give the MDC something to do and fears that this body no longer has a purpose in life will
be eradicated. It will also provide a second alternative to those who are suggesting a GNU
version of M. Adopting the route taken by Netscape, InterSystems will allow the product to
be developed at near zero cost. If there is a change in company direction, the
community-developed product will be bundled with its own products while privately enhanced
versions will point to its own database engines. New entrants into the market will not
benefit from this move, as the M engine itself would be the property of InterSystems
(besides not being available in source). If at some point in time it decides to halt
Workstation, all it has to do is withdraw the M engine from public domain.
If this source available GUI product performs better than
InterSystems expects, we envisage firms (for example those made up of redundant
Micronetics employees) who will offer support and training for this product and enhance it
with features. The readjusted benefits of the M world, automatically become the benefits
of InterSystems allowing the company to attack other markets.
Will this baby live or die? As stated in the commentary of
MWM (which went online a couple of weeks before this extraordinary edition), there is a
feeling that the M world is gaining momentum and that things are happening. The wheel is
in motion, but will it accelerate or decelerate. Only the moves by InterSystems can tell
us.
Comments on this article
Name: |
Gerd |
E-mail address: |
gerdn@rz-online.de |
Comments: Chris, I fear that, though I value your opinions and agree to most of them, I have to state that your further conclusions are wishful thinking, more or less. The ISC have made their point within a few days without big announcements (you mention that in your article) and if we want to talk about a future of something M-related , then it is Caché, like it or not. I work for a company that got an awful hard hit with the MSM merger and especially the end of WS is a big reason for concern. Nevertheless, considering what had happened over the last years, the surprise should not be too big. Sometimes, I wonder what all that 'M standard' talk has been about... just my $0.02 Gerd |
Saturday July 4th 1998 16:25:00
Name: |
R L Hedrick |
E-mail address: |
rlhed@oregontrail.net |
Comments: I certainly hope that Intersystems has enough of a vision to realize that MSM Workstation is a product that the M community has wanted for years. The Visual M approach using Visual Basic is a half-baked idea that diminishes the power of both M and Visual Basic... Intersystems idea of product development at times eludes me... I encourage ALL of you out there to email the product support group at Intersytems and tell them how you feel!!! |
Friday July 3rd 1998 15:12:00
Name: |
Chris Bonnici |
E-mail address: |
chribonn@softhome.net |
Homepage URL: |
http://geocities.datacellar.net/SiliconValley/7041 |
Comments: What is your opinion about the fate of MSM- Workstation? Any suggestions (solutions)? |
Friday June 26th 1998 16:36:00
E&OE
|