Re: From My Wish List

[Sam_L <lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

When I said usage I was thinking of a charge per "n" deployments, or per 
"m" objects deployed, or some similar metric.  Something more creative 
that named licenses or concurrent users, which I know are steep.

To me, deployment is an extremely important part and the established 
products do it very well because they are OS/400 centric (sorry, 
forgotten the current OS name).

I'm pretty familiar with Aldon and it is quite good at building an 
object the way either you built it manually or how you overrode the 
create options, so after the first time it get recreated identically & 
automatically.  And it handles dependencies well, mostly automatically. 
 I'm pretty sure the other established competitors are similarly 
competent.

Sam


On 4/1/2014 6:34 PM, Jon Paris wrote:
> We looked at RTC EE a while ago for the IBM i build capabilities - but the pricing appears to be geared towards the 20+ developer shops. We needed it for a team of 3 - 5 and it was cost prohibitive.
>
> To be fair, the competition (Aldon, Turnover, etc.) are also costly.
>
> There are a couple of new European imports in the market that have a lower cost of entry. Arcad has been round longest but is not that much cheaper than the establishment crowd. One of the new boys (in North America) is Synergivity (http://www.synergivity.com/) which I'm due to get a briefing on in a week or two. There is another but the name completely escapes me at present.
>
>
> On 2014-04-01, at 1:29 PM, Sam_L <lennon_s_j@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > I'm curious if those interested in this thread have considered the
> > existing commercial products available, such as Aldon, Softlanding and
> > MKS (there may be others).  Don't they all do build, promote and deploy?
> >
> > I took a brief look at the RTC Package and Deployment article but I
> > couldn't quickly determine if RTC knows to deploy in the right order
> > (e.g. PF before LF, files and display files before modules and program).
> >   Sophisticated deployment is already built into the existing commercial
> > products.
> >
> > I understand price and maintenance may be an issue.  If any of the
> > commercial folk are looking in, they might think about some kinds of
> > usage based pricing in an attempt to get to the small shop market.
> >
> > Sam