Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

What's "bad" is that the investment from IBM to move stuff to native seems to 
be no longer there, hence all this "crud" (OK, it may not be crud on the system 
it was written for, but compared to the native code I still maintain it's crud) 
being moved over in PASE stays there, and it does NOT run anywhere near as well 
as native code, and is often a bit*h to debug errors in (ever try to go through 
joblogs, etc. for those things?)

Is it better to have something run in PASE than not at all?  Well, I suppose 
having crud is better than having nothing.  At least that philosophy seems to 
have served Microsoft well over the years.  ;-)
 
Neil Palmer, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada 
(This account not monitored for personal mail,
remove the last two letters before @ for that)

----- Original Message ----
From: Trevor Perry <tperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:06:28 AM
Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

Hey  - that "crud" is someone else's code. Would you like them calling your 
stuff "crud"?

Besides, the System i is the INTEGRATION server. And, if we can run their 
applications faster in PASE than they can run native on their server, why 
would we NOT bring it over here? IBM brought Notes over to PASE first, and 
it was way faster. Then they moved it to native. Why is that a bad thing?

And, isn't it a GOOD idea to run it on the i - then we CAN replace all the 
other "crud" servers?

So what if they call it "native" - it helps our world domination.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neil Palmer" <neilpalmer400mr@xxxxxxxx>
To: "Midrange Systems Technical Discussion" <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

"- Crud being ported from other systems and stuffed into PASE and being
labelled "native" when it is even less native than S/36 environment. "

EXACTLY !!  Well said Rob.  Another thing I've been complaining about for 
a while.


Neil Palmer, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
(This account not monitored for personal mail,
remove the last two letters before @ for that)

----- Original Message ----
From: "rob@xxxxxxxxx" <rob@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:13:39 AM
Subject: RE: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch

I agree that the disk is terribly overpriced.  I have an urgent project to
archive Domino email to a cluster of two Domino servers on Windows and
Linux.  The i5 disk is getting way too expensive.  Especially when one of
your Domino cluster boxes is a 270-DSD that has the maximum number of
drives, and the largest drives, supported on it with the maximum expansion
supported on it.
What will happen to that 270 in the long term?  Well, since V5R4 is the
last version supported on it and we won't be running anything as old as
V5R4 a year after it's follow on is available it will be going out the
door.

Serious storage condition may exist. Press HELP.
Serious storage condition may exist. Press HELP.
Serious storage condition may exist. Press HELP.
Serious storage condition may exist. Press HELP.

When my boss starts migrating stuff off to less expensive hardware you
better believe that's something.

Reliability?  Kinda iffy on that.  Lots more problems lately.  Could be
any number of things:
- Getting the box to do more and more things increases complexity
- Newbie dweeb programmers don't give a rip about quality
- Crud being ported from other systems and stuffed into PASE and being
labled "native" when it is even less native than S/36 environment.  We
don't expect Linux or PC-XT to run CICS or i5 based RPG applications, why
should we think that wedging it in is a good idea?  They rewrote Domino
for the i5 and it kicks a$$.  If they had to do it over again they
probably would have done it in PASE and it would suck swamp water.

Support?  Just try getting support from IBM on why Linux running on a lpar
on a 570, that uses an IBM SAN switch to communicate to an IBM tape drive
reconfigs the tape drives after every IPL and you have to manually
reconfig the buggers in TSM.  Have full maintenance on 570.  Have
maintenance on SAN switch, have maintenance on 3582 (and you do NEED
that).  Now IBM wants an additional $10,000 for SAN support.  Just for
this simple set up!!!???
Radar O'Reilly:  "I don't think what he said is physically possible."
Hawkeye:  "You're right - he does have a lot to learn about anatomy."


Rob Berendt
-- 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com