Re: CL enhancements -- MIDRANGE-L

** Reply to note from Mark Lazarus <mlazarus@ttec.com> Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:22:23


> Will it cost them more?  YES.  But see the reality (and I'm sure that they 
> are not the only ones out there w/ this attitude.)  
>  
> Programmer: We're facing a huge Y2K project. 
>  
> Manager: How big? 
>  
> P: A large percent of our system, including DB files, screens, reports, 
> queries, SQL, etc. Thousands of objects.  We will have to either put most 
> projects on hold or greatly expand our staff. 
>  
> M: Hmm.  What does IBM have to offer? 
>  
> P: There's talk about a tool, but nothing official yet.  They haven't even 
> finalized date support in the DB (i.e. *PRTF, *DSPF.) 
>  
> M: Any other products? 
>  
> P: Some, but nothing spectacular. 
>  
> M: Let's see what other vendors have to offer.  We'll get a more modern 
> up-to-date application, more open, and Y2K compliance will be thrown in for 
> free... 
>  
>  In retrospect, had IBM come out w/ a solid product much earlier in the 
> process, (and for a more reasonable price than what it is now,) I believe 
> that many of those "wandering managers" would have been headed off at the 
> pass. 
>  

Mark, are you saying that IBM is your application vendor? You haven't come
out and said so, yet you blame them, apparently as a tool vendor, for the
company's defection from the system. 

Are you trying to say that it is IBM's job to update all software vendor's
products that run on their machines? It does seem that this is what you
are implying (after all, your "company" didn't switch to another
application and stick with the hardware/OS/tech staff they currently
have). Have you taken a moment to think about what this implies?

This doesn't make sense. I think you are mistaken. I don't see any reason
the conversation you describe could not have included, "What does our
application vendor say about Y2K compliance?" Are you saying that IBM
should be blamed because they are the hardware vendor? The operating
system vendor? The tools vendor? So, if you had been on NT you would be
now buying AS/400s because Borland was too slow to act?

Who is the application vendor? Or, if there is none and "one of the
largest AS/400 customers" was using a completely home grown app, then why
is IBM at fault? 


> >I believe that if you or your client feel that migrating to another 
> >platform is the less expensive, faster solution, then you are either badly 
> >mistaken or the software product your customer is using is extremely poor.  
>  
>  See above. 

See above.

>  
> >Now, if what you are going to say in response is that there are other 
> >circumstances that make a migration more attractive, my response to you 
> >is: That is exactly my point. 
>  
>  As mentioned above, it was a large mitigating factor. 
>  

Not a believable scenario. 

>  -mark



Chris Rehm
Mr.AS400@ibm.net

How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business?
Get an AS/400.
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---