RE: Green screen - it's time is over/CODE/400

Tom,

Many good posts, that deserve at least an acknowlegement.  The push-down
stack found this one on top.

Many great points, as usual.  See inline.

jt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of thomas@inorbit.com
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:52 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: Green screen - it's time is over/CODE/400
>
>
> Jt:
>
> On Wed, 14 November 2001, "jt" wrote:
>
> > I NEVER got the verify to work, unless it didn't reference any DB files.
>
> I never had any problem with verify after the first few times
> some five years ago or so. Once I get the comm working, etc., no
> more problem. Can't recall what fixed 'verify' in particular
> though. (Actually, I can't remember it having a problem; but
> there were _lots_ of problems early on, both under OS/2 and
> Windows, for me.)

The comm seemed to work as I could download members with no trouble.  Set up
appeared to go smooth.  IIRC, I could execute commands on the 400 through
CODE.  Could VERIFY programs that didn't require files defined on the 400.
Unfortunately, five nines of my code uses files.  (Go figure...;-)  What
bugged me is I saw identical problem listed in CODE newsgroup, for months.
They sure appear to be short on resources, to let this problem go unresolved
for that long..  Although it may be because they hadn't noticed the posts of
the error message...

It may be resolved in V5R1, which I hope to try soon.  I don't give up
easy.. I just run out of time...


>
> > When you know something like the back of your hand, like SEU,
> AND you can do
> > it with one hand tied behind your back (and I've had to do
> that), AND you
> > have to take the triage approach to self-education...  What
> you're looking
> > for is for CODE to have an option for an IDENTICAL look-and-feel as SEU.
>
> CODE does have an SEU-workalike option that brings familiarity.
> It isn't "IDENTICAL" of course, but the differences begin to come
> down to differences based on Windows vs 5250, e.g., resizing
> windows, etc. Such things as the same line commands (Copy, CCopy,
> Move, RePeat, etc.) work much the same in CODE when switched on.
> And I certainly wouldn't want CODE/400 screen designer to be
> "IDENTICAL" to SDA!

I want an *IDENTICAL* match to PDM.  I started writing one, and doesn't seem
so hard (given I hardly know VB).  My guess the guys writing the code for
CODE have never used PDM, so it may not seem like it's worth developing.  I
disagree, but...

The CODE interface was VERY similar to SEU.  It was nice...  I guess I
shoulda started with that part.  I'll get use to it, if I can get VERIFY to
work.  I'm not asking for this feature for me.  I saw an survey (albeit
unscientific) on News/400 that showed 80% of coders use SEU.  I'm
categorically stating that the easiest way to make that 80% go to 0%, and
the percentage of CODE user go up a plus 80%, is to make CODE keystroke
compatible.  100%.  The developers think they've provided a no-brainer.  I'm
just describing how, in actual fact, to make it a no-brainer.  100%
keystroke compatible (SEU *AND* PDM) means they can drop support for
PDM/SEU, basically immediately.  Sure, there not spending any development
dollars on SEU anyway, so what's the big deal.  Because they're giving
short-shrift to 80% of the customer-base (according to the un-scientific
survey).  That necessarily implies that they're thumbing there noses at 80%
of the customer-base, by stating the tools you use day in and day out are
never going to be enhanced.  Poor customer PR, IMV.

I'm not that concerned, myself, however.  I'm an old dog that can learn new
tricks, on occasion...;-)

>
> > So what we have here is an accounting problem.  CODE may not be a profit
> > center.
>
> For me, this is much closer to the problem. Put simply, I've
> never found a way to *BUY* CODE/400 -- I can only buy some other
> product that has CODE/400 thrown in for free. I don't understand
> that at all (unless I've missed a sales channel someplace).

I guess they figure with the bundle around $300 (AFAIK) there's no point in
unbundling CODE.  I don't know if I disagree.  However, I paid either $1150
per seat (or might have been for 2 seats).  Anyway, I spent that and saw the
price drop to $300, so I felt I was duped by being an early adopter.  If I'd
have just gotten a duffel bag for being an early supporter of CODE (throught
the wallet more than through using it) I wouldn't have felt like I was a
loyal customer who got taken advantage of.  As it was, I felt like a
"sucker" to try the thing out and pay out the nose, where if I'd a just held
out longer I could saved a bundle.  I may have left a wrong impression that
I have money laying around to burn, or at least IBM seems to have that
impression.  I don't.


>
> > ===> What anyone sees in this Open Source movement...  well, it's simply
> > beyond me...
>
> Not me. Elsewhere you speak about lack of venture capital, but
> that's only true in the direct sense. An OSS package can be
> installed by any profitable company and then modified. Those
> modifications are covered by the funds that keep that company in
> business, and the modifications often are what get put back into
> the OSS package. I see much more to OSS; but I don't see lack of
> capital as a real issue.

Wrong list, I've been told, several times.  But I reply back to the same
list the original post came in on, so shame on me.

I said it wrong, in part.  The lack of VC is often *given* as a reason for
the current economic slump in OSS.  I read some folks write that *IF*
sufficient VC was available, OSS will jump back on it's feet.  I don't
believe that, but ICBW.

I agree with most of what you said, above, Tom.  My contention is that most
businesses really don't want to be in the business of modifying operating
systems and program tools.  Theory works great in academia, but most
businesses don't whan to screw with it.  If the business owners knew that's
what they were paying top-dollar salaries to do, I don't think they'd be so
awe-inspired by the concept of "free" software.

I believe a lot of the success of OSS is strictly a reaction against the
rapacious nature of M$.  If M$ ever released even halfway-decent API specs,
you might see OSS take a REAL ugly turn for the worse.  JMHO.

What I'm also saying is that when you pay a vendor for a product, there's no
reason why that vendor COULDN'T accept patches from their users.  There's no
reason users COULDN'T submit patches, for the vendor to co-ordinate.  Don't
see it happening, though.. I sure gotta admit that.

>
> Tom Liotta
>
> --
> Tom Liotta
> The PowerTech Group, Inc.
> 19426 68th Avenue South
> Kent, WA 98032
> Phone  253-872-7788
> Fax  253-872-7904
> http://www.400Security.com

Thanks, Tom.



<chit-chat>

Don't read this if you don't want to:

Had a biopsy taken from my prostate, today (just as a precautionary measure
:-)...  Found out that the procedure was actually more fun that spending
time writing this list, on certain days.  Evidently, if I write something
that someone doesn't want to read, I therefore become responsible for the
fact that they decided to read it.

Up until now, I always figured that rule only applied if you were a pro.  I
wrote my first post, of any kind, maybe 16 months ago.  Still waiting to get
paid for any of this...;-) <-- emoticon for joke, BTW.

So I'm still learning a lot, which is why I read and write, in the first
place.  Like most, I learn more by reading.

</chit-chat>