|
+1 Nathan.
Migration is expen$ive - very very expen$ive. And few shops seem to get
the promised benefits.
That's why I mentioned the idea that more IBM i shops - when threatened -
should ask to make a competitive bid. If nothing else it forces the shop to
look at the value they have and the true costs that are likely to occur
when transitioning.
Jon Paris
www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
On Dec 13, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Nathan Andelin <nandelin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:because
Mark,
The part of your argument that I'm having difficulty reconciling, is the
assertion that some of your clients have moved to another platform
providing an IBM i GUI was too costly.and
The cost of migrating databases and applications from IBM i to Windows
Linux is so high in my experience, that I question the validity of theby
assertion that the cost of an IBM i GUI was really a factor, or that IBM
could have averted migrations by bundling a GUI solution with the OS.
One group asserts that they do provide GUI applications on IBM i. This
group tends to delineate how they do it. Another group blames IBM for not
bundling a GUI with the OS, but refrain from delineating what they mean
a GUI solution.Perl,
Most people who provide a GUI under Linux, do it with HTML, CSS, and
JavaScript on the front-end; paired with PHP, Python, Ruby, Node.js,
or Java language environment on the back-end. Why don't they evercomplain
about the lack of native GUI support, bundled with the OS?wrote:
How should we reconcile the opposing perspectives?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM, mlazarus <mlazarus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
product
Nathan,
You're only partially correct. The application would need to be
rewritten, to some degree. But, the additional cost of the add-on
expensiveplus the additional development and testing overhead made it too
createdan endeavor to undertake, from the clients' perspective.
I went through this at several medium to small clients. Had IBM
included and integrated this functionality into the OS I would have
thesome standalone mini applications, or a parallel function to an existing
application, and let them get used to having *their* data displayed in a
real GUI, with additional functionality.
There is no way that they would shell out for an expensive tool (plus
thatyearly maintenance!) just to try it out to see if they want to go in
thedirection. There are other details in play, but that was a big part of
capabilities.decision.
The fact that we can get a GUI to display does not mean that this is an
inherently a GUI OS. It's not. IMHO, until IBM decides that it's
worthwhile investing in creating a fully integrated, modern interface as
part of the OS, this box will be perceived as old and dated. That's a
shame, because it's a real workhorse with many innovations and
-mark
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.