Re: Saving the System i: Fight Rather Than Switch -- MIDRANGE-L

I think you miss my point.  Check my much more voluminous previous post: I'm
not saying that we can't have a standard UI, just that extending the 5250
architecture isn't the way to do it.  And even that's something of a
mis-statement; we extend the 5250 architecture every day.  But there's a LOT
more work required than meets the eye, and if it's not done properly, you'll
get junk.  Personally, I think the majority of the "advanced GUI" keywords
on the current DDS need to be axed; they're inflexible and not very useful
in anything but the simplest GUI.

At the other end of the spectrum, the pixel-painting approach of Windows or
X-Windows is WAY too calculation intensive for the iSeries.  It's a complete
waste of resources.

What we need is a very high-level GUI toolkit (something akin to HTML. Such
as XUL) that we adopt.  Even better, we need an iSeries-specific abstraction
layer which we can program our HLLs to and into which we can plug formatters
of any kind, be it HTML or some other interface.

Didn't miss your point at all. I guess we just use different words todefine it our goal. I didn't mean to imply that it had to be 5250 likeor even allow EXFMT (for example) to interact with it. What you proposeis exactly the 'i' like solution I would expect from Rochester andToronto. Much like TIMI hides the hardware from the software this layerwould hide the final UI from the program(er).

    My company does mostly System i work..

I do the same thing, Larry.  That's what I do (although it's sometimes an
argument as to whether the web application server itself will run on the
iSeries (WebSphere) or on a sidecar (e.g., Tomcat on Windows or Linux)).  I
use a message based architecture where the only thing done in Java is
conversion between EBCDIC and the screen, and all the processing is done in
RPG.  It screams (show me another web-based application where you can hold
down the PageDown key and scroll at multiple pages per second!).

   Excellent!  Maybe you need to sell your product to IBM? (??)

    So why is 'i' sliding backwards? A big part of that is US. Trevor...


This is where we start to diverge.  I don't think Trevor's site really
espouses the same concepts you do below.  I think Angus is a viral
advertising site, attempting to win mindshare through gimmickry -- this is a
very common technique, I grant you, but I'm not sure it applies in the
server world.  I respect Trevor's efforts, but I'm not yet a convert to the
concept of viral advertising for the iSeries.  I think it's because I get
the idea that viral advertising is an implicit concession to the idea that
FACTS can't sell the box.

Angus' goal is not simply to spread viral marketing though it does thatvery well. It shows the platform in a favorable light, points out thegood, better and best of the platform and makes fun of us (the 'i'faithful) and others who simply don't do the best we could in support ofour platform. It is Not a replacement for IBMs efforts but it augmentsthose. It is out there to provide another view, another angle, anothersource of information that supports the platform in a positive manner.

ASK QUESTIONS:

1) "So what anti-virus solution will you be employing and how much will
that cost in dollars and system performance? You know we don't require
any of that on System i. That's a cost you are adding to the system.

(snipping many other great questions)


These are excellent points, and while anybody with three functioning brain
cells can see that an iSeries far outperforms a Wintel server farm in all
but the most trivial front-loaded price comparisons, this still doesn't sell
the box.  Why?  Because the people making IT infrastructure decisions - be
it CFOs, CIOs, even DP managers -- are no longer technically competent to
make those decisions.

Back in the day at SSA, I remember that one of my primary jobs during my
stint in pre-sales (all programmers had to serve in pre-sales prior to
becoming managers, an outstanding concept) was to do line-by-line code
reviews with prospects.  Find me a CIO today who can do even a functional
technical analysis, much less a code review.  Hell, a code review of a lot
of the "production" code being written today would cause a good programmer
to run out the door screaming.  Thus the Betamax/VHS trap we find ourselves
in.

But maybe, just maybe, the concept is a little of both.  The best
combination of gimmickry and fact is the current Mac advertising.  Whenever
I see one of those ads, even the ones that miss, I can't help but say
"Brilliant!".  You might note that I'm using the catchphrase from another
commercial.  And here's the difference: while I can't remember which beer
uses that campaign, I am in the process of purchasing a Mac.  Or at least
considering one.  Okay, I'm not a beer drinker, but still, lots of viral
advertising only gets you to remember the phrase, not the product.  While a
good campaign based on both fact and fun might do better.

So maybe that's what we need.  A serious list of reasons to buy an iSeries,
and then a bunch of real viral advertising based on those premises.
Unfortunately, you also need dissemination, and that's going to be the
tougher bit.  And now I'm done for the day... maybe <grin>.

I can't agree more. I love the Mac adds myself. If iSeries Access rannative on MaxOS I'm near to certain that I'd own one, the adds get myattention while the product beats the competition. . As I mention aboveAngus by itself will not save the i. Even all together Trev's othersites won't do that but certainly they are for everyone and bits andpieces of what's needed to make that happen. If you think you cancontribute to the list of serious reasons to buy i feel free tocontribute them to Angus. There are places there to post such things.Heck we could add another entire category there if one doesn't fitexactly. Or find somewhere else to disseminate the information and findothers to help. The more the merrier!!


 - Larry

Joe