RE: protect your system from altered or "patched" MI programs...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hall, Philip
>
> Not so much misstatements, more hijacking (oops that's going to trigger
> Carnivore) the thread for a sales pitch.

Phil, what you seem to miss is that I'm pitching an architecture, whether or
not you use my product.  Let's review the statement:

"If you rewrite your code to run as client/server, IBM is OK with it.  If
you
use something like my tool that makes changes at the source level to change
your user interface, IBM is OK with it.  If you hack the operating system to
circumvent the licensing agreement, IBM is not OK with it."

I talked about three approaches: rewriting, revitalizing, and hacking.  And
while one of those approaches was indeed mine, you seem to forget that I
give the revitalization technology away for free on my website, and for a
whopping $99 if you buy my book.  I also give a version of CPYSPLFPDF away
for free, and a whole boatload of examples and installation instructions on
my websites.  What exactly do YOU give away for free?

So, let's see here.

I am an advocate of client/server architecture.  I have been for over 20
years, from the days of the Series/1 and the System/3.  I've written rafts
of client/server code over that time, and have published tons of articles
about the subject, spoken at COMMON and users groups, and so on.  These
topics are nothing new, and I've spoken them here and elsewhere for a long,
long time.

I gave the architecture away for free, but it was still a little too much of
a leap for people to implement without a jumpstart.  So I decided to create
a product to fill that niche.  Is it so surprising that my product is
designed to use the architectural approach that I've been perfecting for the
PAST TWENTY YEARS?  And if I have a product, am I supposed to all of a
sudden stop talking about architecture?


> The thread *wasn't* talking about the way Fast400 works - that's
> been beaten
> to death in two midrange lists - but the fact that IBM just released a PTF
> that specifically targets an ISV application to cripple it - but
> we were all
> given a 'do it the Joe Pluta way and keep IBM feeling happy' yet again.

No, my statement was, to put it bluntly: "Quit whining and do something
productive."  Rather than waste bandwidth complaining that IBM is crippling
something, why not write code that actually does something useful?  Fast400
wasn't an "ISV application" - Fast400 was a hack specifically designed to
get around a loophole in the operating system, not something that provided
any added value.  How anybody could have thought that IBM would NOT react
exactly this way is beyond me.  The designers had to know that - of course,
their insistence on anonymity was pretty much proof of that.


> How long will it be before IBM activate code in CFINT to tax (non-IBM)
> TCP/IP processes, when their greenscreen tax is reduced/dries up by people
> using C/S ?

I don't know, Phil.  How long until they start charging extra for EBCDIC?
Or RPG?  Or BIDI?  What other wild statements can you make?  Until such a
time as that happens, why not write code that works with the operating
system, rather than against it?


> Anyhow, like you say it's a waste of time/effort complaining, IBM
> is in full
> control.

They always have been.  And we sit here in the one of the cushiest
professions in the world because of them.  I don't know about you, but my
life would be a lot different if there were no computers - I'd actually have
to labor for a living.

Joe Pluta
www.plutabrothers.com