Re: Cheaper Servers?

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Simon,

I am not saying that 5250 is evil.  What I was saying, regarding
presentation, is that some people would not be happy with any client other
than 5250 and the other fellow's argument for xWindows, or any other
graphical presentation, would be stomped upon by the '5250 only' mantra
chanting crowd.

<snip>
but I'll still want the ability to configure my AS/400 from my AS/400!
<endsnip>

You never had that ability.  You always had to rely upon a 5250 client.
That 5250 client may have been a 3196 terminal, but it was still a 5250
client.  Trust me.  I've had the system console break and plugging in a
new model, correctly addressed, did not come to life.  Details were
previously on this list.  400 kept chugging along.

Rob Berendt
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin




"Simon Coulter" <shc@flybynight.com.au>
Sent by: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
04/17/2002 04:56 AM
Please respond to midrange-l


        To:     midrange-l@midrange.com
        cc:
        Fax to:
        Subject:        Re: Cheaper Servers?



Hello Rob,

You wrote:
>I agree that the command line interface is nice for some features like
>stopping or starting programmatically, or configuring.  I still have
>programs that we would restore from tape and run to configure a new 400.

Not only that but commands are also useful for providing a record of
changes to the system by putting the commands in a configuration CL
script.  Try doing that with click-type, click-type in OpsNav.

>However, there are numerous people who spend time writing programs to do
>what op's nav does.  And they do it with subfiles and/or panels which is
>definitely a presentation issue.

Since our product ONcmd attempts to alleviate some of the "OpsNav Only"
issues I'd like to understand why you would think there is a presentation
issue.  Is it simply that you object to a green-screen panel because it is
not as pretty as a GUI window?

We do provide the raw commands but we also wrap those commands in a
work-with interface for those who prefer working that way -- best of both
worlds!  It is also better from a usability point of view to be able to
list all configured resources from the command line.  Why allow ADDSMBSHR
to define a share from the command line but provide no way to view the
result other than resorting to OpsNav?  That would be inconsistent.

While I agree that OpsNav is a pleasant enough interface, especially for
the less technical, it is also slower and less effective for many reasons.
My primary objections to OpsNav are:
                 1/ It requires Windoze for which I have no business need.
                 2/ IBM provide no alternative to OpsNav-- it is simply
stupid to
require the world's least reliable OS to configure and manage the world's
most reliable.

If OpsNav ever becomes pure Java and I can run it on OS/2 Warp I'll be
less concerned but I'll still want the ability to configure my AS/400 from
my AS/400!

Regards,
Simon Coulter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
   FlyByNight Software         AS/400 Technical Specialists
   http://www.flybynight.com.au/

   Phone: +61 3 9419 0175   Mobile: +61 0411 091 400        /"\
   Fax:   +61 3 9419 0175   mailto: shc@flybynight.com.au   \ /
                                                             X
                 ASCII Ribbon campaign against HTML E-Mail  / \
--------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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.