Re: Early Client Server on the AS/400

Jan,

In a message dated 12/27/98 12:04:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
JanAS400@aol.com writes:

> << Given the benefit of hindsight, our decision to
>   recommend C/S was probably a poor one at the time.  Why do you ask? >>
>  Because i'm an as/400 developer (rpg type) i've been asked to be an expert
>  witness in a lawsuit.   the suit is:   one of the big6 accounting firms
sold a
>  "client server solution" in Jan '94 to a company, proposing a  switch from
the
>  company's as/400 to unix, sybase, hp, and programs written in "C" for the
486
>  "PC" (we call this "fat client" now).    big problems, the code didn't
work,
>  the systems crashed, databases didn't talk to each other, etc.    I'm
>  researching whether they could have gone "client server" using the As/400
they
>  had at that time.   or could they have used "pop up windows" and forgotten
the
>  GUI interface?    I'd appreciate any of your thoughts about this..   In
>  May '94 IBM announced ILE and V3R7 of OS/400.    lots was happening with
C/S
>  in early '94 at IBM.   Thanks for responding.     jan

Regardless of who's memory is the best on this subject, your client
_CERTAINLY_ could have used C/S by January of '94 on their AS/400.  ODBC would
have provided poor to dismal performance, depending upon which driver you
chose, but it would have worked.  An APPC-based application would have
provided better performance, but I'm not aware of any commercial product
available at the time that would provide this transport.  My current primary
client utilizes the ESS/400 product, which provides an APPC connect, to hook
their VB touch-screens on the production line directly into the AS/400
database in real time.

Suggesting a move from the AS/400 to UNIX simply to implement GUI was probably
a big mistake on the part of the "Big 6" firm.  UNIX is every bit as
character-based as was the AS/400 at the time.  The "dirty little secret" of
"Big 6" (and other) firms is that they often offer a solution for which they
have personnel available to implement.  Had your consulting firm had a
"gazillion" AS/400 developers available, an AS/400 solution probably would
have been offered.  Many articles have been published of late showing that
SAP/R3 runs better on the AS/400 than on any other platform, yet SAP solution
providers continue to offer UNIX- or NT-based implementations merely because
"that's the platform they know".  Same with the "Big 6 (now 5)".  Your client
would most certainly had been better off upgrading their "green screens" than
going to GUI, but then I often question why people move to GUI when the
productivity superiority of GUI over "green screen" hasn't been proven.

I don't see why you need this, though.  The firm obviously recommended an
unworkable solution -- period.  Whether or not the AS/400 could have provided
it is moot.  The consulting firm screwed up "big time", and unless you're
trying to prove that you _NEEDED_ GUI (a difficult task in and of itself)
there's no reason to even drag the AS/400 into it.

JMHO,

Dean Asmussen
Enterprise Systems Consulting, Inc.
Fuquay-Varina, NC  USA
E-Mail:  DAsmussen@aol.com

"What's real in politics is what the voters decide is real." -- Ben J.
Wattenberg
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---