DeLong, Eric wrote:
You really lament (resent?) the abandonment of 5250, don't you...
Actually, my sarcasm was as much for the sake of humor as for actual
resentment of the way (1) IBM abandoned further development of 5250 at a
time when it was more-or-less equal to XWindows, instead of expanding
it, (2) IBM developed a bad habit of rubbing terminal users' noses in
the fact that they're not using iNav, (3) IBM didn't bother with even
rudimentary native RLA support for the new SQL-only data types, and (4)
IBM could have done a much better job of integrating SQL into QSYS.LIB
than they did.
But of course, "i" (or whatever IBM is calling it this week) does have
the advantage that a reasonably competent developer or administrator can
spend 100% of his or her time signed on with QSECOFR-equivalent
authority, without screwing anything up so badly that it can't be
unscrewed (unless he or she starts deleting user profiles with
OWNOBJOPT(*DLT), without fully understanding the consequences). Compare
that with Unix-type systems, where nobody in his right mind signs on as
root unless it's absolutely necessary.
--
JHHL
