|
It is dangerous for us to get too deep in analysis since, as Trevor pointed out we are, potentially, part of the problem. Although, I won't get so wrapped around the axle on the name issue. When is the last time you heard anyone actually name the brand and model of a server? Usually the reference is: It's a Dell. Or it's an HP box. Or it is a Compaq. Or it is a Sun box. They might even refer to it by OS: It's a Linux Server. Or, it's a Windows box. Brand/model name usually has nothing to do with it. No. The danger is that we are already IN the "System i" society and many of us ONLY do System i (or iSeries or AS/400) development. So we lack perspective. Well, we lack that perspective until someone proposes a new hardware/OS combination. Then, suddenly, we have to deal with alternatives.
Names don't sell hardware. Applications sell hardware. And, to be "relevant" today it has to be a GUI. Now, we can continue the current approach which is to build applications using tools that would also be used on other platforms: CGI approaches, PHP, Java, .NET and many, many others. These typically use an "other platform capable" language front end tied to an RPG back end and DB2 as the database. The problem with that approach, the separation of GUI development from the System i, is that the System i then loses it's uniqueness. If any platform can run the GUI, be it .NET, Java, PHP or other technology then the need for the System i is diminished. Sure, the RPG business logic can be rock solid and *could* be a selling point but unless the System i GUI development is native, faster and more stable than other comparable approaches, we end up fighting the "it's just another server battle" and on that front the IBM System i cannot compete. Heck, IBM can lose to itself with xServers and pServers being viable alternatives.
I have to agree with the fact that as long as the GUI is non-native and is really just a "port" of a technology that runs on other platforms, the ability of the System i to distinguish itself from all other comers is diminished. And, that makes it hard for it to compete on the broader landscape of technologies.
And, don't get me wrong. I don't think the System i is in ANY way inferior to any other server platform. I don't. It is far superior to just about any other box I work with. However, the perceived value (read: competitiveness) in the general marketplace makes it very, very difficult to sell. I LOVE this box. IBM has just made it unnecessarily difficult to sell. Give me a native GUI that I can quickly develop, performs better than other technologies and allows me to go where other technologies cannot go, and we'll have not only a rockin' box, but a rockin' box that sells.
Pete Helgren Neil Palmer wrote:
Well worth a read: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh120406-story03.htmlNeil Palmer, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada (This account not monitored for personal mail,remove the last two letters before @ for that) -l. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
