Re: How many IBM i commands are obsolete?

[Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree there is merit to all you speak of here - I see some things are 
cleaned up, as I mentioned in the CMDDEV menu that no longer lists the 
CRTDEVDKT, yet the command exists.

Personally, I see this more in a nice-to-have category. I want IBM 
spending its resources on things with a more direct impact today. I also 
am not sure now many people go to the extent I think you do, to explore 
the system - I could be wrong on that. I remember over 30 years ago, in 
computer school, printing out screens from the several CMD* menus - sort 
of interested, as I recall, yet not used much beyond printing them out. 
Hey, I was new to this thing, maybe not so young chronologically but 
young related to System/38 and AS/400.

As to the CAAC, if there is an Idea for this, I probably would not have 
seen it, as I'm on subgroups for AppDev and Db2/IFS - I don't attend 
SysAdm meetings. So I can't speak to the response from CAAC to this.

Regards
Vern

On 10/17/2024 2:16 PM, Rob Berendt wrote:
> Vern,
> I think some of the stuff SHOULD be removed from the system.
> Some for clarity, like obsolete tape density options.
> Some for the clarity of people not going down rabbit holes trying stuff
> which doesn't work anymore.  Like diskette stuff.  Or OV/400 stuff (which I
> hope most people removed LONG ago)..
>
> And IBM has announced a bunch of stuff will be removed.  I mean and
> meant removed, not just unsupported. Whether or not the commands which use
> that stuff will be removed remains to be seen.
>
> Often, leaving obsolete stuff can really come to bite you in the butt.  For
> example, leaving something from 4.5 on your system and finally you're just
> now trying to remove it only to find the uninstall fails since it won't run
> on the OS you're currently running.  The uninstall might not pass object
> conversion, require an obsolete version of Java, require some qpase module
> which has changed versions and isn't compatible any longer, etc.
>
> CEAC seems to understand this a lot better than CAAC.