Re: Is DB2/400 still the correct terminology fo DB2 on the IBM i?

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:17 AM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hmmmm. So are you saying the name isn't important?

I don't think anyone is saying the name isn't important. I think there
is disagreement over whether it's the *most* important thing.

Let's say there are two IBM midrange users' groups. One of them spends
all their time talking about the proper name of the platform. The
other spends all their time learning new technologies for that
platform and how to employ them. Which one sounds like the more
worthwhile group? Which one sounds more fun?

I spent 30 minutes today on the phone with a recruiter. He's new in the area
and the market. He had no idea of the history of the system but referred to
it as the iSeries because that was what he was told to say.

Why is this important? He is trying to find people to fill open jobs. Some
of those he's talking too aren't interested in going to work for a company
who uses an iSeries (or worse, an AS/400!) You see now that the market is
opening up potential employees are starting to get a bit picky and if your
company sounds like it runs an AS/400 even if it runs IBM i on Power Systems
you lose points. You sound 'old'. You sound 'past tense' if you get my
drift.

Look, we all get your drift. The drift that I'm not sure some of the
more strident IBM name-hawks are getting is that from where a lot of
us are sitting:

If you're an employer and your company sounds like it runs on an IBM
i, then to most of the IT world, you sound old and past tense. Or too
small/eccentric to matter. Either way, you're irrelevant.

I do think we should keep pushing the current name. But we need to
push the modern capabilities of the platform even harder. And I
believe the platform is better served by an inclusive tone rather than
an insular one.

John Y.