Re: No giving up on System i (was: I'm about to give up)

and it's my fault that our vendor won;t do it and I am too busy as a 1 man
shop fixing all the broken stuff, adding the emergency changes cause we are
rapidly changing our business processes, running tons of ad hoc, need it now
queries, fixing the interfaces to other non-system i packages because the
vendor upgraded the package or a new MS release.

I could move it to a GUI a half dozen ways with some of the commercial tools
available but I don't have the extra 40 hrs a week to devote to it. Not
complaining thats just the way of life in a small shop. Will we eventually
move to a GUI interface, yes, will it be on the System i, doubtful, will it
cost big$ and years of conversion, Yes. Do I think its the right direction,
No, but I ain;t calling the shots.

On 10/7/07, Trevor Perry <trevor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark,

Blaming IBM continues to be the game-du-jour. This is not the approach
needed to remove the stigma from our greenish hue.

Regardless of anyone's preference, IBM has provided newer interfaces to
the
System i.

1. iSeries Navigator - GUI tool to manage the server.
- people don't use it, because it is not the ~familiar~ green screen. Not
IBM's fault.

2. WDSc - GUI IDE based on (a modern tool) Eclipse
- people don't use it, because it is not the ~familiar~ green screen
PDM+SEU, etc. Not IBM's fault.

3. WAS - Java middleware to deploy web applications.
- people don't use it because it is new and they don't like change. Not
IBM's fault.
- people don't use it because it requires Java. Not IBM's fault - they
provided wizards for you.
- people don't use it because it sucks resources. IBM's fault.

4. HATS, Webfacing, WDHT
- people don't use it because it is new and they don't like change. Not
IBM's fault.
- people don't use it because it is hard to use and requires lots of
maintenance. IBM's fault.
- people create crappy user interfaces with the tools, because they don't
have a graphic designer "design" the interface, thinking they know better.
Not IBM's fault.

5. Third party interfaces/refacing/reengineering.
- vendors don't use them because they won't invest in modernizing their
product, catering for their current "AS/400" clients. Not IBM's fault.
- vendors don't have the resources to invest in modernizing their
interface.
Not IBM's fault.
- vendors don't invest the time in researching their choices. Not IBM's
fault.
- customers are fed a lot of crap from vendors about how wonderful their
"modernization tool" is, and remain hesitant about GUIizing. Not IBM's
fault.

.... and the list, and the blame, goes on...

The bottom line is that the ability to create a better human interface is
available today, and has been available for quite some time. If there is
no
GUI interface for an application, that is NOT IBM's fault. And the
industry
needs to stop whining about it. It is the INDUSTRY's fault that there are
few GUI interfaces to the System i and i5/OS applications.

Trevor




On 10/7/07 9:31 AM, "Mark Villa" <iseries.4.me@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Human interface Interface modernization is no longer a nice-to-have
project goal for green screen.We have long needed a new default user
interface. We can't keep improving the engine and gas mileage and
ignore the steering wheel and dashboard. I think this has always been
the #1 reason behind past decisions to take the risk of a new
platform. How many years does it take for that to sink in at IBM?

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.