Re: RD Power v7.5

Trevor Perry wrote:

JDPi,

You are a freaking loon.

The name of the current product is Rational Developer for Power Systems
Software. It is the same product for i and for AIX, and it only has one
name.

Only you would call them the same thing. A hen is just a chicken, except to a rooster.

Your article gave it the name: IBM Rational Developer for Power Systems
Software V7.5 - RPG and COBOL Development Tools for i

Nope, IBM did in the announcement letter.

In that article, you complained about the length of that name. What you had
identified as the name was not the name, but one of the RD Power FEATURES. I
expect under that case, you calling the feature "RD Power for i" might be
close, but you are still spreading some major misinformation.

What misinformation? If someone buys RDP for AIX will they be able to program RPG with it? Nope, not unless they get the i feature. You can thank me for preventing THAT confusion.

I would not expect that I would know the future name of the product, since I
don't have an NDA, nor have I been told, nor would I pre-disclose.

Are you saying that I have pre-disclosed something? If so, get yourself a good lawyer.

I didn't get the name under NDA so take your snark sandwich in the other room and ... well, use your imagination. :)

As for
some IBMer internally calling it RDp - which may seem to you like it was the
'working' name, I would expect this is simply them abbreviating it for their
own personal expediency and it does not represent IBM as a company. When
talked about publicly, as was done last week at the WMCPA conference, it is
referred to as RD Power when its full name is not used.

Well, I don't represent IBM as a company either. RDPi is a wonderful personal shorthand for Rational Developer for Power System - RPG and COBOL Tooling for the i. Again, you don't like it, don't use it.

------

Anyway, this was fun.

Let's be clear, Trevor. I will call the new tool RDPi until I choose to call it otherwise. It is not confusing, it is not misinformation, it simply doesn't meet with your approval. That's okay. IBM read the article in question. Nobody raised a concern. So let's see... IBM is okay with the term, and you're not.

Oh whatever shall I do?

That was a rhetorical question. Loon.

Joe