December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Ted Holt wrote: IBM wants. . . . IBM is warning us. . . . IBM is telling us. . . . I have no disagreement with anything you have said, Ted. My observations are that IBM is tiptoeing around this whole issue. This is because IBM is scared of alienating customers, , , ,and with this attitude they should be. If all that is left (of choices) is an IBM server to serve windows applications, or an NT server at 1/5th the price to do the same, guess where the customer will go. Once you become like everbody else, you lose the special qualities that made you attractive in the first place. ergo If IBM does not turn around, and start enhancing the features that made OS/400 the OS that people love to defend, these same people will go elsewhere. OTOH, if IBM makes native enhancements, then it will have a competitive OS that can be touted as an alternative to anything else. My prediction - Look for 128-bit, or even 256-bit hardware/software in a year or two. Dave

[T.Holt]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

David said: Once you become like everbody else, you lose the special qualities that made you attractive in the first place. Exactly, but that seems to me to be IBM's strategy. I don't understand it, but what do I know? (BTW, other vendors have done the same thing. The last time I looked probaby a couple of years ago, DG's proprietary stuff was only about 5% of sales. HP runs UNIX. Sperry went UNIX before merging with Burroughs to become Unisys, about 15 years ago.) The only thing I can figure is that IBM thinks they can beat everybody else at the various & sundry openness games -- UNIX, Linux, Java, Notes/Domino, etc.

[T.Holt]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Joe asked: So what do you think of my strategy, Ted, which is to develop your programs as you normally do, but deploy them using something like my revitalization architecture, which uses a browser or very thin graphical client? This way they can be developed and tested with a green screen, but in production they run in batch (allowing a much cheaper iSeries) and connect to a cheap PC running Java or a browser. I don't know what my opinion's worth, but I think it has merit. IBM must think so too, as this is what Webfacing is all about. The question is, Do users really want a brower interface?

[T.Holt]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

It's one thing for IBM to make no further enhancements to record level access and put all efforts into making SQL perform in competition with all the other SQL databases, but it's another altogether to read into that that record level access is to be discouraged and new development to be done in SQL. IBM has said that if you use one of these enhancements (& we don't know exactly what those enhancements will be) in a file, & if you use that file with a native interface, the open will fail. IBM's pricing on batch systems is not to punish green screens but to compete on price with other web servers without giving away the store. IBM's intention doesn't matter. Charging high prices for something discourages its use. When did they indicate DDM and Java Toolbox record level access classes would no longer work? As I said in a previous post, Ralph, the old stuff isn't going away. You'll still be able to create a physical file from DDS & read it in an RPG II program, if you want to. Why does putting all their efforts into competing with SQL translate into something that makes no sense? It doesn't make sense to you, & it doesn't make sense to me, but it must make sense to the decision makers of IBM. We get emotional about this, because our lives are tied to skills -- RPG III, RPG IV, DDS, SDA, SEU, etc. etc. We want the AS/400 to live on because that's what we know. The folks at IBM don't have that emotional attachment. It would take a strong statement of direction, way beyond we're putting all our future efforts into SQL, to make me think that it's not better to develop with RPG I/O statements. And I haven't seen it. Being competitive with the other SQL based servers does not require IBM to make any such statement discouraging use of native access, IBM has said they're not putting dollars into the native interfaces, only into SQL. I don't know of any statement of direction that could talk louder than money. BTW, everybody, keep in mind that I'm just the messenger boy. Don't shoot me.

[R.Daugherty]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Ted wrote: "BTW, everybody, keep in mind that I'm just the messenger boy. Don't shoot me." We're not shooting you, Ted, the discussion about how to develop now doesn't get any closer to home and we're trying to determine an answer that makes sense, which requires us asking and answering some hard questions. The statement that a file won't open at some future point with some as of yet undetermined enhancement is what I was looking for, Ted. Thanks for that message. What we make of it may be something else altogether, but that's not going to change a thing about what IBM is doing. I'm sure we all appreciate this insight you've given us, Ted. I'm not sure what to make of it. It isn't out of the realm of imagination that some database enhancement isn't compatible with record level I/O. I don't think anybody would ask IBM to restrict themselves from adding competitive features to DB2 that record level access can't handle. Good grief, we've made decisions like that before. And there's nobody who can't understand a tradeoff of clearly recognizable increased ROI by adopting some new technology. T he key is recognizing that ROI. What is often touted as such is usually marketing PR that doesn't pass the acid test. If IBM truly adds revolutionary technology that requires SQL to access, guess what, we'll write SQL and access it. Big deal. The competitive advantage right now are Chains and Reads with SETLL's. When IBM has something better, we'll recognize it. By the way, does anybody have any idea why a Java program would only work against SQL Server or Oracle, but not DB2? And if SQL isn't cross database, it's competitive advantage is.... ? Thanks again for the info, Ted. Don't worry, the slings are aimed over your head.... Ralph ralph@ee.net

[B.Myrick]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Ted Holt Said: BTW, everybody, keep in mind that I'm just the messenger boy. Don't shoot me. Ted, We aren't out to shoot you. Just to get in your hair now and then. -bret

[J.Pluta]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

The question is, Do users really want a brower interface? Which is where I differ from - well, from pretty much everyone else. By making the communication message-based, I support any type of interface you might choose to design. This could include a "5250 style" type of interface, if someone really wanted one. It wouldn't be very hard to mock up a fixed-font graphical application that looked and felt just like a 5250 interface, but communicated using messages. That would provide green screen equivalence, at least for those people who are using PCs with emulation. The only missing group would be those using actual green screen terminals. Joe

[R.Daugherty]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Joe wrote: "The only missing group would be those using actual green screen terminals." The reason given to date has been harshness of environment and no desire to buy extra expensive hardened PC's. I think the net devices satisfy that argument now. There may be an issue somewhere about running TCP/IP though... maybe. If there is I can't imagine them buying any new software.... Ralph ralph@ee.net

[T.Holt]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Bret said: We aren't out to shoot you. Just to get in your hair now and then. If you've seen my picture, you'll know there's not much of that to get into! smile" WIDTH="20" HEIGHT="20">

[B.Myrick]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Ted, Pretty much the point. Was in a feisty mood today. Getting caught up with what I wanted to finish by Thursday (of last week) and the plumber is getting the goo cleaned out of my household drain system. Now maybe I can start on what I wanted to do on Friday of last week. -bret

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Ted Hold wrote: The only thing I can figure is that IBM thinks they can beat everybody else at the various & sundry openness games If this is true, then IMO, IBM has another think coming. When all are the same, the purchaser will look for another feature to make a decision. As IBM does not offer the service that it used to, that feature will most likely be price. In terms of price, IBM systems are a big loser. Dave

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Ted Holt asked: The question is, Do users really want a brower interface? It depends who the user is: The casual user who needs a periodic inquiry lookup will not leave the browser open all the time, and does not want to start the browser for the single lookup. The data entry clerks who never look at the screen while working simply can't user the browser interface. Others might, but the scrolling up and down is going to be a problem. Yet, when asked, each might blindly state a preference for the browser. It's only when put into perspective, that the user will react differently. I learned a long time ago, that there is a big difference between analysis, and order taking. Dave

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Ted Holt stated: I don't know of any statement of direction that could talk louder than money. Correct, Ted, and IMO, this is precisely why IBM will backtrack. You would have to have a very short memory span not to remember that IBM once cut off all OV/400 support back to 1998, only to reinstate the support. OV/400 will continue on until the end of 2001, and IBM will most likely backtrack again. The reasons were loud words from big customers. Dave

[David Abramowitz]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

Doesn't the JDK for OS/400 provide SQL access? I could have sworn I read something to that effect in the "Java for RPG Programmers" book?!? Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

December Article by Ted Holt: The Death of OPNQRYF

David A.: It seems to me that your statements on IBM and their experience with Office Vision customers would only make them more cautious on getting rid of out-dated technologies. I can't imagine a more klugey word processing system than Office Vision (well, possibly, stone tablets, hammers, and chisels). So, if I were an IBM market exec, I too would slowly tap dance around my "loyal to the old stuff" customers. But, I would also make sure to find new customers when the old ones get tired of being milked and I get tired of supporting stone tablets.