Joseph, about all I can do is shake my head at how silly you make all this
and the generalizations you draw. Don't you realize that most of the reason
for this whole plan of yours is because you keep trying to awkwardly sell us
By the way, you'll note that I almost never discuss my products. That's
because I understand the rules of engagement here on the lists (or at least
I thought I did).
This URL is a google search of
archive.midrange.com for the keyword "PSC" which is your product.
"...almost never"? Why don't you quit trying to paint other people a
different color than what they are.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
Nathan Andelin wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your suggestion for a new VENDORS-L list. ItYes it would. Of course a lot of that is because your statements above
kind of sounds like you want to relegate discussion of non-IBM licensed
products to a separate list and let you promote EGL on the established
lists <smile> Wow, talk about an unlevel playing field! That would
work for you?
make some pretty strong assumptions. I find those assumptions troubling
enough that I'll detail my views for the community and you can decide
for yourselves how you feel about it. As for me, this will be clear
enough that I won't need to post anymore. If anyone has questions, send
them to me privately because I really don't want to take any more
bandwidth with my thoughts on the issue. One big message that you can
easily Next past <smile>.
Anyway, the first assumption I find troubling is the idea that
Midrange-L is meant to be a "level playing field" for IBM products and
vendor products. It's never really been that way. In fact, until
recently vendor products have only been allowed to be mentioned in
direct respnose to an inquiry. Only lately has David allowed you and
Aaron to discuss your frameworks pretty much with impunity. (In your
case specifically Nathan I think it's because you have said in the past
that you planned to open your frameworks to the community as an open
source project. I assume that's still the case, right?)
Anyway, a VENDORS-L would allow a less restrictive environment for
commercial products to be discussed. Anything could go there, going so
far as allowing announcement of products and so on if David so desired
In any event, it would remove the discussion of commercial products from
Midrange-L, especially the thinly disguised product advertisements that
sneak in from time to time. By the way, you'll note that I almost never
discuss my products. That's because I understand the rules of
engagement here on the lists (or at least I thought I did).
Second is this odd notion espoused by a few people that talking about
EGL is some sort of promotion and against the spirit of the list.
Talking about EGL is no different than talking about RPG or COBOL or
Java. They are all IBM-supported languages, they are all available on
the i. In fact, what *I* don't understand is the bias against EGL here
on these lists. You pay for EGL the same way you pay for ADTS or RPG.
It's a licensed program product, and as such is one of the things these
lists was originally intended to discuss.
So, to sum up: yes, I think the Midrange-L list should be more open to
discussions about IBM products from RPG to HMC, from Java to iNav, from
EGL to LTO, than it should be to any commercial products. It's always
been that way, and it's worked well.
I agree with you though; the lists need guidelines and moderation.The guidelines are there, and the moderation is only needed for a
handful of individuals, one of which I realize is me. But I'm getting
One problem with the new EGL list is the name. Who really cares aboutHuge disagreement here. EGL is fundamentally as important as Ruby on
EGL (the language)? How many debates to you envision between EGL, RPG,
COBOL, C, CL, etc.? IIRC, the language elements are a trivial part of
Rails or maybe even Java itself. Only time will tell whether the
community adopts it, but if you take the teime to really understand it
you won't be able to minimize the engineering of the language. Not only
that, but EGL is one of the few things about the i that actually is
known outside the i community. The mainframers know what EGL is, and
the UML community knows about it too. If anything, playing in the EGL
space gives the i some credibility in the broader community.
Isn't it really the package that matters (RDi and RBD)? II'll reiterate my position: RUI probably belongs on the WEB400 list, as
think it would be a good idea to rename the list to RDi & RBD to give it
more scope and attract new members. Aside from that, I think it would
also be appropriate to discuss RDi & RBD on Web400 because most folks
will use it for Web application development.
does discussion of JSF tooling in RBD, especially when discussing it in
comparison to other web technologies. EGL discussion of all types could
also go in the EGL list. RDi, on the other hand, belongs the same place
as SEU and PDM: on the Midrange-L list, or on the appropriate language
list (RPG or COBOL) when specific to that language.
Okay, that's it. I'm done. I know I'm the EGL booster here and one of
the lone voices in the wind. It's funny, but not too long ago I was the
lone WDSC booster and I heard a lot of the same arguments, and I'm no
longer alone there. We'll just have to wait and see if I was right this
time as well. As to the lists and how they're arranged and managed,
David's done a fine job to this point and I see no reason to think he
won't make the right choices again.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives