RE: CFINT: I understand it now...

["jt" <jt@xxxxxx>]

Leif,

Maybe I missed a post.  I don't recall any recent posts from any Jon Pais
(nor Jon Paris, either...;-)

jt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Leif Svalgaard
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 2:03 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: Re: CFINT: I understand it now...
>
>
> From: Joe Pluta <joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com>
> > You're right, Leif.  A server program is more efficient than the
> > corresponding monolithic program, but the sum of the client
> program and the
> > server program is roughly equivalent.  However, a server can provide
> > performance boosts such as leaving data paths open and caching
> small tables
> > that simply aren't as efficiently implemented in a monolithic
> program that
> > is invoked in different interactive sessions.  Correct?
>
> ===> yes, but not to the point of making it 'far MORE' efficient. In fact,
> a decebt operating makes more of a difference by caching accesses, etc.
> So, yes, but not 'far MORE'.
>
> >
> > > Let us assume for a moment that everybody went where 'IBM
> > > wants them to go' and converted everything to run client/server.
> > > That would remove the CFINT revenue and if as some (e.g.
> > > Jon Pais) have claimed that revenue is essential to the viability
> > > of the platform, then the platform will die when everybody is
> > > doing client/server. The only saving grace is that doing client/
> > > server may require a lot more processing power forcing people
> > > to buy bigger boxes thus enhancing IBM's revenue to offset the
> > > CFINT tax,
> >
> > Ah, but I don't agree with Jon's assertion.
>
> ===> neither do I, BTW, I think the CFINT tax is just a
> 'low-hanging fruit',
> but Jon is not alone, there are many others of a similar ilk.
>
>
> > client/server processing is better than monolithic programming.
>
> ===> no argument, really. I was just not convinced by your very
> strong statement that C/S is 'far MORE' efficient. C/S is a 'far
> BETTER' approach for many other reasons.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L)
> mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>