Re: Free OS/400

1)  Personally I liked every word of Alistar's response.  His remark about
lack of use of xwindows on Unix may be IBM's thought.  Yes, we could
develop that, but, if everyone is going to have a PC on their desk anyways
to run an application, why clutter up the desk with another monitor?  A non
Windows based platform (no bullets, I am lumping os/2 in with windows) will
never satisfy the user base for the desktop.  There are just too many
applications coming out that one will require a PC on the desktop.  Or at
best a Citrix type server.
However, instead of looking for a physical device like XWindows we should
be looking for a virtual device, much like a client, on the PC.  Once this
device is created then HLL's should be able to write out to that device
without having two teams of people to work on each application; server and
client.
Believe me, I am thinking as I write.  And it just hit me.  .  .  Did I
just describe a browser and CGI programming?  And trust me, I wasn't trying
to lead into this.

2)  <snip>If you are working with a non-green-screen app that you reckon is
bullet-proof, easily maintainable, easily supportable from the desktop
delivery point of view and that doesn't use inappropriate amounts of AS/400
resources - tell everyone about it! <endsnip>
You put so many qualifications in here, that I wonder if you truly want
someone to trumpet, or to find some way to shoot down someone's
application.  I argue that the users don't care if you have to send people
around with CD's to upgrade their application.  They want that application.
There are software tools to help with distribution.

3)  <snip>Let's try to use this list to get these issues out into the open
& see how
we can help with them.<endsnip>
This list is a great benefit.  However that website to join IBM in those
teams is a good idea.
There are three primary issues with Client Server now:  Performance,
performance and performance.
A)  There is no good reason why getting a list of databases in Operations
Navigator should take so long.
B)  There is no good reason why the spool file viewer should take many,
many minutes to navigate to the bottom of a 5000 page spool file when 5250
can do it subsecond.
C)  There is no good reason why Code should take so long to display a list
of members while PDM can zing that right up.
Don't blow be grief about the network.  My PC is running both 5250 and
these applications.  The same network card reads both data.

Rob Berendt

==================
A smart person learns from their mistakes,
but a wise person learns from OTHER peoples mistakes.

+---
| 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
+---