Re: Linux (see smaller server Iseries)

[thomas@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Brad:

On Mon, 28 January 2002, "Brad Jensen" wrote:

> > (I'm personally impressed with how much they've managed to
> provide via TCP/IP that was
> >  previously available almost solely through SNA. Granted, the
> green-screen functionality
> > visible to the user might not have changed much; but the
> underlying 'plumbing' has
> > certainly seen work in OS/400 V3 and V4... and without breaking
> much of what has always worked.)
>
> If they didn't provide TCP/IP stuff, they would lose the
> opportunity to bid on government computer business. They have been
> fighting a delaying action, not charging bravely forward.

I am not claiming there was no reason for it other than market pressure; I 
don't claim any specific reason at all. But you seem to want to claim that 
there was no significant cost to IBM in doing so.

I cannot dispute that but I'd still like to see an argument other than "we all 
know it". I might believe it, but I don't "know" it and I suspect nobody else 
here does either. If anybody does, I'd love a citation to a source. Did I miss 
the one you provided?

I realize this is a devil's advocate position, but I don't want it to go 
unspoken, especially if someone can contribute a solid fact.

Sure, CFINTxx exists. But that in itself says absolutely nothing about the cost 
to continue supporting interactive. Technically, I'd guess it even increases 
the cost. I mean, SOMEbody has to maintain and test it.

Tom Liotta


--
Tom Liotta
The PowerTech Group, Inc.
19426 68th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phone  253-872-7788
Fax  253-872-7904
http://www.400Security.com


___________________________________________________
The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe
 Better!  Faster! More Powerful!
 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now!
 http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/