Of course my view of the most efficient path forward with Open Source is
"install a Linux LPAR and do the fancy stuff there, where it's at home, and
just slurp the data from the IBM i LPAR".
Not that I don't love PASE. I do love PASE. But trying to make everything
on Linux work on i seems inefficient in comparison to "Let Linux be Linux,
let IBM i be IBM i," since every possible mode of connectivity works
between the two.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Pete Helgren <pete@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AMEN! We are all in "violent" agreement as Jack says....I am never happy
when I have to roll up my sleeves and build something in Linux, but at
least it is doable.
The good news is that IBM has been moving us forward, even if it isn't as
fast and complete as we would like.....
GIAC Secure Software Programmer-Java
Twitter - Sys_i_Geek IBM_i_Geek
On 11/14/2017 2:34 PM, Buck Calabro wrote:
On 11/14/2017 1:17 PM, Jack Woehr wrote:--
If IBM i'ers who care take action like the rest of the open sourceI'm going to be That Guy.
community and port C# to PASE, there will be C# on IBM i PASE.
Rather than have IBM talent spend time porting this or that particular
thing, I'd rather they spent their time making the full, normal, typical
GNU toolchain work. What does 'work' mean for me?
When this is done, a very, very large universe opens up to us. In the
case of OP, there are many hundreds of gcc examples dealing with
cyphertext. I bet there are more gcc examples than C#.
This is the IBMi Open Source Roundtable (OpenSource) mailing list
To post a message email: OpenSource@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: OpenSource-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.