On 9/22/2015 4:30 PM, Justin Dearing wrote:

I had the great pleasure of being a a SUG where Trevor Perry made it quite
clear that AS/400 and iSeries were no longer acceptable terms (unless your
dealing with older hardware of course). I also see on the IBM page its
referred to as *IBM DB2 for i*. That's a bit of a mouthful.

Is DB2/400 still considered acceptable? Should I say DB2 for i when I want
to be brief?

Within the community, DB2 is fine. Most of us will understand that
you're talking about /our/ DB2. Outside the community, like on Stack
Overflow, I call it DB2 for i to distinguish it from the
Linux/Unix/Windows, and mainframe varieties.

Regarding '400', there is so much angst within the community about
losing those digits in the name. I'm too aspie to grok that, but in any
event I don't proselytise. I simply use the current nomenclature and
pretend that I'm leading by example.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 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.