RE: Source now allowed in the IFS

| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of rob@dekko.com
| Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 8:44 AM

| Why would you want to mirror objects between ifs and QSYS.LIB?

<snip>

Thanks for question, Rob.

Way back when I managed a shop, I found that many critical objects WERE
getting mirrored.  But down to end-user PCs.  Mainly through file transfer
back then, but occasionally by (blech) hand-keying reports...

But the data was rarely (meaning never) adequately backed up.  Also found
that the mission-critical data that the end-users collected (as well as
quasi-applications they developed) tended to disappear EVERY TIME there was
turnover in a key position...  Since "it's SO easy to develop an app", it
was always easier for the next person to scrap everything, than try to
figure out "HOW THE HAIL?!?" the prior person managed their PC data/apps.

Always felt that the data, at the least could be kept on 400.

Also a whole host of "issues" (and time) involved in ASCII/EBCDIC conversion
could be easily avoided if the data was just stored both ways.  (I don't
know if there are, currently, dedicated co-processors under the covers that
do this conversion in hardware...  But, if not, there could be.)

I haven't studied MicroSoft Active Directory that much, at all.  But, best
as I could figure, I sort-a pictured this being the intent of it...  Why not
put it down to MI or firmware...?  A heeeeeeeooooooge part of the POWER of
the 400 still lies in the robust database OS/hardware combo, so why not make
the MOST of that...?


jmo, not based on what is actually feasible for IBM to do, of course.

jt