|
"Flipping off IBM" and my PSC400 product are entirely different. The former takes advantage of undocumented features and knowledge of OS/400 internals, while my method simply modifies your programs (at the source code level) to use a different I/O method. PSC400 in effect re-engineers the software with a mind towards true client/server development, which I think is the direction IBM would like us to pursue. On the other hand, I'm researching hooking the SEPT for a future release, and THAT might indeed fall a little closer to what Fast400 does. I'll be interested to see how IBM handles Fast400 before I decide to implement the SEPT hook <smile>. Joe > -----Original Message----- > From: Leif Svalgaard > > > Why would a product like FAST400 or any technique to allow you to exceed > the > > processing capability that you purchased be any different ethically than > > buying 100 licenses of [insert your favorite software here] to > run on 200 > > computers? <running for cover> > > wouldn't that same argument not also apply to Joe Pluta's method of > "re-engineering programs to remove the 5250 I/O" and get the same > interactive capability but without 5250? > > Presumably true "interactive" capability is measured in service > given to users interacting directly with the system. The interactive > tax should really be called a 5250 tax.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.