|
1) Personally I liked every word of Alistar's response. His remark about lack of use of xwindows on Unix may be IBM's thought. Yes, we could develop that, but, if everyone is going to have a PC on their desk anyways to run an application, why clutter up the desk with another monitor? A non Windows based platform (no bullets, I am lumping os/2 in with windows) will never satisfy the user base for the desktop. There are just too many applications coming out that one will require a PC on the desktop. Or at best a Citrix type server. However, instead of looking for a physical device like XWindows we should be looking for a virtual device, much like a client, on the PC. Once this device is created then HLL's should be able to write out to that device without having two teams of people to work on each application; server and client. Believe me, I am thinking as I write. And it just hit me. . . Did I just describe a browser and CGI programming? And trust me, I wasn't trying to lead into this. 2) <snip>If you are working with a non-green-screen app that you reckon is bullet-proof, easily maintainable, easily supportable from the desktop delivery point of view and that doesn't use inappropriate amounts of AS/400 resources - tell everyone about it! <endsnip> You put so many qualifications in here, that I wonder if you truly want someone to trumpet, or to find some way to shoot down someone's application. I argue that the users don't care if you have to send people around with CD's to upgrade their application. They want that application. There are software tools to help with distribution. 3) <snip>Let's try to use this list to get these issues out into the open & see how we can help with them.<endsnip> This list is a great benefit. However that website to join IBM in those teams is a good idea. There are three primary issues with Client Server now: Performance, performance and performance. A) There is no good reason why getting a list of databases in Operations Navigator should take so long. B) There is no good reason why the spool file viewer should take many, many minutes to navigate to the bottom of a 5000 page spool file when 5250 can do it subsecond. C) There is no good reason why Code should take so long to display a list of members while PDM can zing that right up. Don't blow be grief about the network. My PC is running both 5250 and these applications. The same network card reads both data. Rob Berendt ================== A smart person learns from their mistakes, but a wise person learns from OTHER peoples mistakes. +--- | This is the Midrange System Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
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.