| -----Original Message----- | [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx | Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:35 PM | Actually my first sentence was I see your point. And that was regarding | the 80/20 rule. Yeah, I saw that and my first sentence was I appreciate it. That was regarding you attempting to see the point, and making a cogent suggestion. | And actually the number of *CMD objects do have a habit of diminishing. | Try DSPOBJD of QSYS/*ALL *CMD on a few releases to check. I suppose they | could remedy that by duping some commands, like they did with the TCP | commands. I'm not much-a one for trying to impress by raw numbers.. like HOW MANY COMMANDS can we HAVE in total! That would impress!! In fact, I'm impressed by the less is more philosophy. Find it curious the number of commands has gone down. Don't mind duping the TCP commands, as they are as all stuff *nix poorly named and inconsistent in the first place. But we've had that discussion before, Rob. | I don't think DSPF/EDTF is like EDLIN. EDLIN was like the old S/36 SEU - | line at a time. Notepad or EDIT are better comparisons. I also said I'll look into EDTF, but I'm not so easily impressed as you are, Rob, it seems. And I've been told I'm not easily impressed, by others. | I've come to really like the IFS commands. You liked the IFS commands to begin with, and have not liked CL to begin with. | For example if I wanted to | change the authority of every object in a library I would have to write a | program to do so. But with the IFS commands I can do | CHGAUT OBJ('/qsys.lib/mylib.lib/*.pgm') | USER(*PUBLIC) | DTAAUT(*AUTL) | OBJAUT(*NONE) | It's gotten to the point that I'll use the IFS commands even if I am | changing one object. Might as well be consistent. There's advantages to consistency, of course: Yeah, too bad CL-users got shafted and most-all the "new" stuff was patterned after *nix and Doze stuff. Seems like it would have been more useful (to the users of the system who have PAID for all this development, btw) to add generic capability to GRTOBJAUT (which, iirc, it still doesn't have) rather than make up an entirely new command. Wouldn't surprise me if that's something like what it does, under the covers, but dunno. Would seem awful simple to allow (better yet default) the OBJ parm on CHGAUT to using Lib/Obj naming too. Iirc, that wasn't done either. Of course, if you actually prefer Oooops Nav and *nix, that view probably doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you're missing the points here, Rob. There's a "400 way" of doing things, that is consistent and logical. And although *nix and Doze are (to me, semi-)consistent and (to me, semi-)logical, they lack the benefit of the "400 way" which includes being Very practical and EFFECTIVE (both cost-wise and technically). This "400 way" isn't explicitly defined, but easy to see: You can make the best advantage of it if in a large shop of specialists, AND you can do almost as well in a 1-person shop. I don't think you've ever worked in a small or 1-person shop, Rob or (I believe) you'd see some of these points easier. Mebbe it's just your preference for point-and-click admin, why you can't see what's been LOST by these enhancements you mention. Dunno. But my point is that I'm not so much concerned by what's happened, as what's GOING to happen as the choices get limited to Eclipse for the Java gearheads and RPG/Cobol masochists; EDTF for the mainframers and Windozers; and vi for "the rest of us". This is what I see coming, and I just don't see that as an advancement. <Wrote the above back when it was posted> Point is that the designers of OS/400 seem to have forgotten the 1-"man" shop, entirely. Problem with that design approach is this: If you have a computer that a single semi-intelligent person can handle all aspects of pretty doggone well then, to me obviously by definition, you have a computer that a large shop can get even MORE from. (The converse obviously does not apply, and is usually the reverse.) And furthermore, you'd have (and the 400 is) a computer that IGS could get even MORE than THAT from, also.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.