Re: Modernization?

Agreed Nathan. It is disappointing. But the people who hold the purse
strings don't usually work in IT.

However, the more software that runs on Intel capable software (Zend, MySQL,
WebSphere., Java, etc), the more successful these mass migrations become.
Decisions are made by the "powers that be" above our heads regarding
budgets, spending, etc. It is possible that many of us could find ourselves
looking for alternative employment just because we have "Intelified" the
system i.

Interesting that about 7.1 -- must keep my eye on this.

Syd


-----Original Message-----
From: web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:web400-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Nathan Andelin
Sent: 16 November 2009 17:00
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Modernization?

Although somewhat disappointing, that was the kind of feedback I was asking
for, Dr. Syd. I'd like to see migrations from IBM i to Windows reversed,
too. I occasionally hear of wholesale migrations from IBM i to Windows that
end in disaster, but it seems that incremental migrations may still be
taking a toll on IBM i.

Disastrous wholesale migrations include those that convert display files and
legacy RPG programs to artifacts that run under Windows. Those seem to turn
out about as well as fitting square pegs into round wholes. But some
feedback about new .Net applications referencing IBM i databases, or
swapping out pre-packaged IBM i software for pre-packaged Windows appears to
be fairly positive. It seems the platform needs new packages that compete
more effectively against .Net alternatives.

On a positive note, the RPG Open I/O interface scheduled for Version 7.1 is
generating discussion about using traditional I/O to interface with
contemporary devices.

-Nathan





----- Original Message ----
From: Dr. Syd Nicholson <sydnic@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 9:17:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WEB400] Modernization?

Yes, I understand that.

But when the salesman comes knocking trying to sell a "modern" solution, it
is very unlikely to be based on the system i -- even IBM promote their own
X-Series. And - remember - WebSphere and Apache run on Intel. Three tier
browser based applications run on Intel.

Yes - we can "modernize" on system i -- but what sets it apart from Intel?
What makes the i sufficiently different?
Most companies have both platforms, and it very easy to see how a finance
director can save money (short term) by adding another Intel box at little
additional cost, whilst simultaneously getting rid of the iSeries and all
the iSeries staff. It also frees up office space for other purposes.

I have lost many customers because Intel was the more attractive option. It
is a trend I would like to see reversed.

I don't see how creating applications that can also run on Intel (MySQL,
Zend, Pearl, WebSphere, Java, etc. etc.) can ultimately justify keeping a
system i. I currently have two clients I am doing my best to persuade not to
go down the "modern" Microsoft route - I think I am fighting a loosing
battle. Both of them are likely to get rid of the i, and the corresponding
staff.

Syd