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

I call it "the mainframe", and let them think there's a huge computer room
hidden somewhere.

If pressed to elaborate, I tell them that their Daddy would know it as an
AS/400, but the product line has completely evolved since 1987.

Then I let slip some famous companies that run their businesses on the
platform.

:-)

Paul Nelson
Cell 708-670-6978
Office 409-267-4027
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Buck
Calabro
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 8:34 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is DB2/400 still the correct terminology fo DB2 on the IBM i?

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.