I see your point about IBM shooting themselves in the foot with the
structure/pricing they're putting in place. Why not just go back to
SEU\PDM and make the switch to RDi when some distant OS release finally
breaks them? Save the licensing fees for RDi until then.
Kelly
-----Original Message-----
From: wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wdsci-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of MichaelQuigley@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:25 AM
To: wdsci-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WDSCI-L] justifying RDi when WDSCi 'still works'
Kurt/Kelly,
----- Message from Kurt Anderson <kurt.anderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:08:32 -0500 -----
. . .
. . .
. . .
(yet). And now it's even worse, my boss who uses SEU will say,
"Well if you want to use 6.1 enhancements, go back to green screen."
That's part of the way I see IBM shooting themselves with the new
structuring/pricing. I understand IBM pushing hard to get us (the IBM i
faithful) to move to a graphical interface. (I don't necessarily think
a
graphical interface offers benefit in every situation, but let's not
open
that debate--at least not in this thread.) My supervisor still uses
SEU.
(But at least he's not adverse to the PC-based tools--he's glad I can
use
them with a couple of the other developers in our shop and get
productivity benefits from it.) I've also heard the argument that,
"We
don't have to put things into a graphical interface." But I can also
point out two or three applications we've deleted from our midrange
system
because the users have found another package. The other package runs on
a
PC and just so happens to use a graphical user interface. Hmmm . . . .
----- Message from "Kelly Cookson" <KCookson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> on Tue,
25 Aug 2009 16:45:56 -0500 -----
. . .
. . .
. . .
I think IBM is trying to push shops off the ADTS tools. Once they have
us on RDi, why would they stop pushing for modernization? And wouldn't
the next logical step of modernization be browser interfaces?
Yes, I've seen the Road Atlas. Just remember if you look at the far
right-hand side (the supposed destination), there's still a sliver of
green 5250 on it. Although I'll grant it's pretty slim.
Anyway as to IBM's push to get us to go graphical, it's
self-preservation--really preservation of the species. If GUI
applications are forthcoming on the platform, users will go to
applications on a different platform. This is due to perceived benefit
of
the graphical interface. I'm not saying there won't be a benefit at
times, but all it takes is the perception. IBM can't develop all the
applications--all they can do is encourage, exhort, and push. But
they've
got to watch how they push or they'll get a big push-back.
We recently upgraded from an AS/400e 720 to an IBM Power System 520. We
would have gone to version 6.1, but no one could believe the increase in
support costs for development tools. We decided to go with V5R4 until
we
could really understand the costs. Now that time has passed, I'm
starting
to see that the costs are simply much higher--we had the right costs all
along. It looks like it could be a hard sell getting RDi approved when
all the other costs are going up so much. (We've got a lot of
functional
code written in OPM as well as some in ILE. As a result, we'll need the
'Heritage compilers' and the modern ones. The costs may just push us
entirely back to green screen. Ouch
Michael
midrange.com
