|
Having read the messages in the thread so far, I would add my thoughts for what they are worth. The message by Bob Cozzi is a rather bleak one. If it is true, that the year 2002/2003 is correct, you may wonder, why IBM put a lot of effort in RPG free format syntax (FFS). The community has asked for it for a decade and now IBM yields to the request. The FFS resembles in syntax other languages like Java and C. (Some would say FFS RPG has specific characteristics not found in other languages, on which I would answer: NOT FOR LONG!!). I think, it is the next phase of the transition (first the name of the system, then the most used language on that system). I agree with him on the graphical interface: the nonsense of OpsNav is a full lie. You can configure an AS/400 with OpsNav nowadays, in some cases thers is no OS/400 alternative (as it should have been): this is like configuring an NT-server from a UNIX-box. I fear, IBM has lost its sense of direction here, because the focus of the last years has been on the Web, Java, Lynux, XML; nothing originally IBM's. Alas, perhaps over ten years they will pick up the requests from the community. But the main point is the difference between an GUI like Windows and the green screen of an AS/400. The development of recent years has seen a shift to GUI and the Web. All new programmes should be focussed on that. The AS/400 is not graphical, thus can be used as a server; hence, the revival of C/S and the rise of the Web. Unfortunately, the success of any GUI has not proven a growth in productivity or efficiency by the users. Green screen applications are better suited for that. But it is the interface, the looks that counts, not the functionality, the contents. Comparing a GUI operating system (OS) like Windows with OS/400 is "comparing apples with pears". Both OS's have their qualities and their weaknesses (the AS/400 has a green screen, Windows has a blue screen, for instance). And yet the two OS's have a lot in common: multiple processing (think of subsystems); multiple applications open (on th AS/400: secondary jobs, second sessions and most of all: group jobs) And the tendency to put all applications onto the Web is not a realistic approach, either. There are applications that I would never like to webenable: applications dealing with financial transactions or private information (human resources, salaries). There is one application in my shop, that I would like to put on the web. That is our resource capacity planning application. It now runs interactively on a daily basis and uses a lot of CPU (over 60%). On the Web I can utilize all other servers, freeing ours to service other jobs. And this application is only for internal use, not worth considering to webenable. Just my thoughts, Carel Teijgeler
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.