The law of unintended consequences

["Reeve Fritchman" <reeve@xxxxxxxxxx>]

John, maybe some IBM'ers will get the message!

The only reason I'd make this decision would be to reject IBM's greed in
taxing QINTER tasks (unless, in spite of the tiresome discussions on this
topic, I'm missing IBM's point of view).  I won't cheat IBM with Fast400,
but I will take my support, my business, my customers, and my loyalty to a
non-iSeries environment.

Wouldn't it be amusing if IBM really did have a warm spot in its cold
corporate heart for the iSeries, only to see the product base erode as
applications being migrated out of 5250 mode ended up running in non-iSeries
environments?

Regards,
Reeve

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On
Behalf Of John Myers - MM
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:03 AM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: Re: CPW Per User
<snip>
This is one reason out of many that my company is writing all of our new
applications to be able to run without 5250 terminal function.  IBM made a
conscious decision to push users away from 5250 terminal functions and to
significantly tax those that chose to remain.

*Unfortunately for IBM, this also tends to make the software somewhat
machine independent ... an unintended consequence!*<snip>