Larry, I am trying my level best to give you the respect that I
believe everyone deserves. But it's not easy, because you are
definitely saying things about me that are factually untrue. We have
differences of opinion, sure, and I can accept those. What's hard for
me to accept is some of the conclusions about me you've apparently
drawn from them.
And you mine.
Well, I think I understand you, but it's probably fairest to say that
we are talking past each other.
THE VAST Majority of people I know and work with say Power Systems and
IBM i.
I never contested that.
It's only people such as yourself who are just determined to live
in the past that insist on using names long dead, AND apparently
associating with those old people as well.
This is really disturbing to me. I have never made any insistence on
using old names. Ever. Go back and read all my posts on all the
midrange.com mailing lists. They go back many years now. Not once have
I advocated using old names, nor have I personally used old names
except to refer to genuinely old systems. I am confident that the
archives will bear that out. I do try to use correct terminology in
person too, but for that you'll obviously just have to take my word
for it, or not.
And what's this about "associating with" those people? Are you talking
about my coworkers? I'm not going to stop working with them just
because they keep saying "AS/400" despite us being on IBM i 7.3 now.
Most of them are not tech people, and as ridiculous as it sounds to
you to knowingly use outdated terminology, it is just as ridiculous to
them to spend even one iota of their effort to change their habit of
calling it "the 400".
Sure a massive percentage of people don't know ANY of the names!
OK, that was reassuring to see coming from you. You understood
*something* in my posts, and it is one point of fact we can agree on.
Those people don't matter here
as they are not us.
I thought "those people" are the ones you meant when you said they
wouldn't ever think to use the term "midrange". Obviously everyone
here *would* be familiar with that term.
MY POINT is that if you DO work in this area and you ARE aware of the
correct names, you should use them.
I agree. I have always agreed. Not once did I say otherwise. Not only
in this thread, but in all of my posts over the years. I think there
is more than enough material in the archives to establish what my
views and practices are.
If you use them then those around
you will use them. And then the people around them will use them.
Here is an area where we disagree, and I don't think there is any
reconciling it. We simply have different experiences here. I do use
the correct names, and have been doing so for years. That has not
rubbed off on the people around me. As I said, it doesn't make any
sense *from their point of view* to change the name that they're used
to. After all, when they say it, everyone knows what they mean.
To me, it would be counterproductive and unprofessional to keep
insisting to them that they use the correct name. I *have* explained
to people why I use the name that I do, and it just doesn't stick. I
refuse to be an asshole about it. I certainly refuse to quit my job
over it.
As a result a few more persons will know that our wonderful platform
continues to be modernized and gain new capabilities and is no longer
that old thing many have remembered from the previous century.
I think this is another area of disagreement. You and several others
have this idea that "when people see/hear/say 'AS/400' they think old
and stodgy; so what will help is if they start seeing/hearing/saying
'IBM i' instead". I strongly disagree. If you put a former AS/400 user
in front of a 5250 screen running on IBM i, and make a point of
calling it IBM i, they will think "oh, yeah, this is an AS/400
screen".
I can hear the retort (because it's been used several times before on
these lists): No, no, no, you don't JUST change the name, you
demonstrate the new capabilities and leverage them to improve
productivity and user experience.
Um, OK. I agree that's what you *should* do. But what I'm saying is
that for most users, you would get just as positive a reaction if you
skipped the name part and only gave them the improved productivity and
user experience part.
Spending tons of effort justifying the use of the names of the past just
doesn't make any sense at all.
Another point that we fully agree on. No one is "justifying" the use
of old names.
I will counter with: Spending tons of effort focusing on the name, and
insisting that others use the "correct" one, just doesn't make any
sense at all.
Call it what it is and sound like you're
in the present not the past and that you care about our system.
I promise you, NO ONE where I work will think you sound "like you're
in the present" if you call our system by its proper name. You may
sound weird, kooky, or pedantic, but certainly not "in the present".
(I know my coworkers think all three of those about me.) People care
or don't care about the system, regardless of the name we use.
Whatever they think of the system, good, bad, or indifferent, they DO
care about getting their work done.
But let me be clear: If you know the correct name, use it. But use it
because you like being correct. Use it because it's a shibboleth for a
certain crowd that you want to be included in. Use it as gravy when
accompanying the meat of genuine improvement in user experience. Don't
bother trying to pass off the gravy as the meal.
John Y.
midrange.com
