I guessing that the problem with charging once for compilers and RDi is difficult for IBM because the compilers fall under a different group from the Rational tooling. I bet they are different cost centers and maybe even different revenue centers. The groups might have to actually coordinate sales or something to allow us to pay one fee. Even softwarte maintenance is seperate. Like you are buying the two pieces from different vendors.
Mark Murphy
STAR BASE Consulting, Inc.
mmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -----
To: "RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)" <rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: 04/01/2015 04:05PM
Subject: Re: Standard source file names?
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Dan <dan27649@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I agree that it's gotten better, more companies no
longer blink when they realize they have to pay for RDi
separate from the "standard" (legacy?) dev tools licenses.
It may be getting better slowly. Our shop is definitely not one of
the ones which is fine with paying extra.
I would be very interested to see hard numbers on adoption rate. Just
polling this list is not going to work, because RDi is definitely
going to be overrepresented here.
Probably the biggest barrier nowadays to higher adoption is
resistance from the developers themselves.
I'm not so sure. I mean, it's really hard to say without hard
numbers. What I do know is that there is a vocal segment of i
developers who say they would use RDi if it were included (or free or
subsidized by their employer). Some folks who already have paid RDi
licenses may call this segment whiners. Whatever. I think it would
be one hell of a neat experiment to see if these "whiners" are as good
as their word. IBM has the power to make this experiment happen.
They could even do it without losing any money (by increasing the
price for the compilers to compensate).
John Y.
midrange.com
