Re: Op's console versus W2K SP4

[James Rich <james@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jones, John (US) wrote:
> This is not bigotry.  This is a discussion about IBM replacing a solid
> technology with one that has a very spotty record at best.
>
> Dumb tubes are generally far more reliable than PCs.  Terminals don't
> have hard drives that fail -- or any moving parts, for that matter,
> beyond the keyboard.  Yes, they fail, but not nearly as often as PCs.
> Terminals also consume less power and generate less heat (unless you're
> using a laptop for your ops console) and in most cases have a smaller
> form-factor.

I agree completely.  They are way more reliable.  For doing iSeries-type 
work, I feel they are a much, much, much better solution than using a 
PC.  I just read an article that discusses the cost and support 
differences between a windows style client/server network and a unix 
style server/smart-display network.  Many of the advantages of the unix 
style server/smart-display architecture also apply to the 
iSeries/dumb-terminal setup.  PCs suck money and personnel resources. 
Using dumb terminals, one iSeries admin can support thousands of users. 
 But if those are PCs, one guy is never going to be able to keep all 
those running smoothly, even following windows best practices.

> Personally, I feel Ops Consoles has not been implemented properly.  It
> should be Linux based ('hardened' kernels are available), run on an IxS
> or natively, and use internal disk.  The front of the system should have
> a pop-out LCD panel & keyboard or a place for them if they are separate
> from the system itself.  Remote control/access is achieved via a LAN
> port.

Interesting idea.  Maybe this is a direction IBM will take.  Personally 
I think an IBM Netstation should be enough.

James Rich