Play nice now Rob,

This is bordering on a 'holy war'. You seem to want to reiterate previous
points, ones that no one has argued with you.

As I already said, U2 cannot target all markets, but you appear to want to
discount that and focus on the market of you choosing. I believe you grossly
underestimate the size of U2's market, so let us just leave that at that.

Brian Leach as released several books, but that is neither here nor there.
No one is making claims that it is mainstream with the general public. In
fact, this leads to the next point.

No, I did not overlook your Google trends link, I dismissed it as baiting.
You know as well as I do that it doesn't mean anything. If you wish to
disagree, discuss that one with your boss first:

U2 is not marketed as a standalone product like MDB, it is embedded in it.
Most people running it wouldn't even know.

I highly doubt that there will be a new acquirer for U2. I think it is safe
to safe that Rocket U2 will stay as is for a very, very long time. If you
want to know why, have a look at RS and have a look at the discussions
around why U2 was sold by IBM.

Once again, to address the majority of your post, I am not arguing that
there are things we can do better and we are working on it.

Tell Joel it is about networking at U2U, there is a whole market out there
that might not have heard of FogCreek or their offerings. :)

If you want further discussion on anything, feel free to continue it with my
privately. Not because I don't want it discussed openly, but because I'm
sure the rest of the people on this list would like this put to rest

Best regards,


Let me me re-phrase my statement:

"For 99% of software projects, MongoDB destroys U2 in every single aspect.
 And it's free."

The fact is, most people aren't developing emergency systems.  And even if I
were building a banking or emergency system today, despite U2's longevity,
I'd argue that up-time alone is not enough considering:

1. I can't find a book on U2 (how to administer, scale, interface, etc.).
2. I can't easily find technical talent who have experience with U2.
3. The technology has changed hands a number of times over the past decade.
(What prevents the next acquirer from ceasing development?)

Yes, you're right -- the people who have been using U2 for the last 20 years
successfully should probably stick with it for its reliability.  But someone
searching for a new database solution is going to be met with a multiple
barriers to entry (the first being discovering that U2 even exists).

Up-time is one aspect.  What about scaling?  Rapid development?  Community
support and involvement?  Look at what Craiglist is doing with MongoDB.  Did
you overlook my link to the Google search term comparison?

I browsed through the 116 page manual on EDA :-), but I don't want to have
to convert my data in order to access from anything but UniBasic.

It will be a big day for me when I can finally do something like I've
written below from programming language X and have a reasonably powerful,
user-friendly API for working with native U2 data.

db ="localhost").db("mydb")

I digress.

I don't want to continue my argument in fear of sounding like I'm just here
to bash U2.  That's not the case.  I definitely interested in U2 at some
level even though I don't work with it much anymore.

Maybe it's something like Stockholm syndrome.  I worked in the U2 bubble for
so long.  Now that I'm out and benefiting widly from flexibility and
openness and thriving ecosystems, and I want U2 to be that way too.

The verdict is still out for me on Rocket, but I'd love to see the progress
you're talking about come to fruition.  I don't know if I can justify U2U to
Fog Creek, but we'll see. :-)

All the best,

View this message in context:
Sent from the U2 - Users mailing list archive at

U2-Users mailing list

Reply via email to