|
> -----Original Message----- > From: Hall, Philip > > Not so much misstatements, more hijacking (oops that's going to trigger > Carnivore) the thread for a sales pitch. Phil, what you seem to miss is that I'm pitching an architecture, whether or not you use my product. Let's review the statement: "If you rewrite your code to run as client/server, IBM is OK with it. If you use something like my tool that makes changes at the source level to change your user interface, IBM is OK with it. If you hack the operating system to circumvent the licensing agreement, IBM is not OK with it." I talked about three approaches: rewriting, revitalizing, and hacking. And while one of those approaches was indeed mine, you seem to forget that I give the revitalization technology away for free on my website, and for a whopping $99 if you buy my book. I also give a version of CPYSPLFPDF away for free, and a whole boatload of examples and installation instructions on my websites. What exactly do YOU give away for free? So, let's see here. I am an advocate of client/server architecture. I have been for over 20 years, from the days of the Series/1 and the System/3. I've written rafts of client/server code over that time, and have published tons of articles about the subject, spoken at COMMON and users groups, and so on. These topics are nothing new, and I've spoken them here and elsewhere for a long, long time. I gave the architecture away for free, but it was still a little too much of a leap for people to implement without a jumpstart. So I decided to create a product to fill that niche. Is it so surprising that my product is designed to use the architectural approach that I've been perfecting for the PAST TWENTY YEARS? And if I have a product, am I supposed to all of a sudden stop talking about architecture? > The thread *wasn't* talking about the way Fast400 works - that's > been beaten > to death in two midrange lists - but the fact that IBM just released a PTF > that specifically targets an ISV application to cripple it - but > we were all > given a 'do it the Joe Pluta way and keep IBM feeling happy' yet again. No, my statement was, to put it bluntly: "Quit whining and do something productive." Rather than waste bandwidth complaining that IBM is crippling something, why not write code that actually does something useful? Fast400 wasn't an "ISV application" - Fast400 was a hack specifically designed to get around a loophole in the operating system, not something that provided any added value. How anybody could have thought that IBM would NOT react exactly this way is beyond me. The designers had to know that - of course, their insistence on anonymity was pretty much proof of that. > How long will it be before IBM activate code in CFINT to tax (non-IBM) > TCP/IP processes, when their greenscreen tax is reduced/dries up by people > using C/S ? I don't know, Phil. How long until they start charging extra for EBCDIC? Or RPG? Or BIDI? What other wild statements can you make? Until such a time as that happens, why not write code that works with the operating system, rather than against it? > Anyhow, like you say it's a waste of time/effort complaining, IBM > is in full > control. They always have been. And we sit here in the one of the cushiest professions in the world because of them. I don't know about you, but my life would be a lot different if there were no computers - I'd actually have to labor for a living. Joe Pluta www.plutabrothers.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.