Evan,
I can't disagree with your points. While others on this list may
exhibit dissentience with this I believe that there have been a large
number of changes that have been made from release to release. And a
large number of them are very relevant to what we do.
One major problem that has occurred is that the wheels seem to have
fallen off of the COMMON requirements process. I haven't been as active
in COMMON recently and I am not trying to criticize COMMON but it seemed
to me that compared to where it was 10, 15, and 20 years ago it had
fallen by the wayside but is hopefully seeing some recovery.
Right now the two largest requirements producers for IBM i are SAP and
large customers. And they are getting a lot of changes pushed through.
As I see it the rest of us can sit here and complain or we can initiate
change requests through COMMON or the change requests that I know Rob
has referenced and USED.
Would someone familiar with COMMON be willing to help publicize its
requirements process? I know Rob has made several mentions on how he
makes change requests. I would think that COMMON would be the better
approach because hopefully you can get the wait of many companies behind
your request. And if you are not a member of COMMON the ability to
interact with a requirements process with other customers might just be
worth the investment......
Michael Crump
Manager, Computing Services
Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.
1509 S. Macedonia Ave.
Muncie, IN 47302
765.741.7696
765.741.7012 f
This email and its attachments may be confidential and are intended
solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views
or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of Saint-Gobain. <redaction>. If you are
not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must
take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to
anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this
email in error.
Hazards
There is an island of opportunity in the middle of every difficulty.
Miss that, though, and you're pretty much doomed.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan Harris
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 12:16 AM
To: 'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'
Subject: RE: IBM investment in i
Hi Anne
I was really trying to avoid responding to this thread as well, but over
the
last few years two things have convinced me that what IBM says about
investing in the system i means something entirely different to them
than it
does to me.
The two best indicators I have seen about where the system i is at are:
- the number of new features that have been worth getting excited about
in
any given release
- the number of Redbooks published (especially compared to other IBM
offerings)
Both point to a complete stagnation of the operating system.
I know there have been plenty of new features added over the last few
years
and releases, but realistically most of it has been aimed at large
corporates with an existing investment, none of it has been of the
gee-whiz
that's cool variety (with the possible exception of PHP) with the
capacity
to attract new customers.
From what I can see IBM is investing simply to retain the existing
customer
base and ensure maximum revenue is extracted for minimum cost.
Regards
Evan Harris
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anne Lucas
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2008 4:28 a.m.
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: IBM investment in i
I truly started to not respond to the comments on the IT Jungle article
by Neil Palmer. I know many of you on this midrange.com list and have a
great deal of respect for you and your opinions, but it does get
tiresome to hear the same thing over and over. But then, I wouldn't
miss reading the posts because I don't want to miss anything! <sigh>
When it comes to what IBM is, or is not doing with budgets for IBM i
R&D, I personally do not believe anything unless I hear it directly from
an IBM executive, or if it is part of IBM's official release. No
offense meant to you, Neil. I've known you for many years and I know
your heart is in this product. I've heard every number in the book
thrown around about what i's budget was, is and will be...I don't
believe any of it.
If I put on a business owner, or CFO hat on, I have to assume with the
merger/unification of i and p, budgets are being merged also. Research,
development, etc. teams will/are/have been merged. Instead of assuming
that is a bad thing, we should be saying "OK, IBM....what does that mean
for your faithful IBM i customers? What does that mean for "net new"
IBM i customers?"
I have a hard time dealing to this fear, uncertainty and doubt without
getting substantiated facts.
So...yes...am still being positive, because I believe in the IBM
executive leadership and I believe in the i product. We've known this
merger was coming for a long time. Over the past two years, I've gotten
an immersion, more like a dunkin', into the x, p and storage side of the
IBM house. There's some great "stuff" there.
IF, however, there are substantiated facts that IBM needs to address, I
have no problem taking my complaints, or anyone else's to any IBMer.
Trust me, there is a tough side to this "sweet little southern gal".
When IBM is wrong, I don't mind calling their hand on it. I choose to
look on the brighter side. I'm still digesting all of this
announcement...it is huge!
Thanks!
.....Anne
************************
Have a blessed day!
Anne Lucas, Genisys Group Inc.
Customer Account Executive
205-823-4831 Office, 205-746-6850 Mobile Fax: 205-690-4193
email: alucas@xxxxxxxxxxx
AOL Instant Message: So Anne Lucas
www.teamggi.com
midrange.com
