RE: RPGIII compiler vs Visual Basic

[rob@xxxxxxxxx]

Trust me, we got it done well in time.  It's just that IBM has, time and 
time again, abandoned "strategic" products for OS/400 and will continue to 
do so.
One of my more recent pet peeves is Tivoli Storage Manager.  Version 5.2.2 
will be the last to run in i5/OS, and that's even under the crippled PASE 
environment.  If you still want to run TSM on an i5 you better get the 
linux, or AIX, version of it.
We all know that IBM announced that SNA dies in 2007.  Do you feel the 
same way about SNDNETSPLF, SNDNETMSG, SAVRST... and the various other SNA 
utilities as you do about EDTDOC?
What about the huge frustration in CPYTOIMPF/CPYFRMIMPF in V5R3?  In 
trying to be more supporting of CCSID's they whacked 90% of the users of 
these commands off at the knees.  Will you still need special ptf's as 
workarounds in future releases?  Will they even be available, or, were 
they just stopgap measures to limp V5R3 along and IBM fully expects you to 
have your code modified prior to the next release?
If MS gave you 2 years notice that they were not going to support .NET in 
some new version of OS would you say "OK fine, they gave me notice, now 
it's time for me to adapt."  Or would you use that as an excuse to point 
out MS's instability?
Will OS/400 always be the last release to get new versions of Domino?  And 
seriously lag behind in Domino companion products, or totally lack, such 
as DUCS?
Is OS/400 one of the first platforms that new versions of WAS run on?  Or 
does it have to wait until the rest of the platforms are done first? (Yes, 
the glass is half full person will say that this allows the other 
platforms to work out the bugs.)  Will it eventually get to the point that 
they expect you to have a linux lpar, or an IXS card to support WAS and 
just have your backend on DB2 on i5/OS?

Rob Berendt