Re: Platform name

On 08 May 2013 08:42, Buck Calabro wrote:

<<SNIP>> can someone explain to me the business value of us on
this list continuing to use antique jargon to describe the modern
platform?

I can not. But for most messages of a remotely technical nature, including a Version, Release, and perhaps also a Modification level [e.g. V7R1M0 or 7.1] would be beneficial for clarify, *regardless* of any /antique jargon/ included in a message. For example if one writes [for whatever reason\excuse], that they are using an AS/400 with v7r1, then as long as the topic is not hardware, then why should anyone care? The pertinent detail is there, the software release for the implied OS, and so it should be easy enough to ignore\overlook the [poorly\incorrectly] chosen nomenclature. Of course those who make snide remarks like "my AS/400, or whatever IBM chooses to call the system this week," deserve every harsh retort they might receive, even if I desire that everyone would refrain from such sniping, and just snip such inane commentary from any quoted text they include in their replies.

I also can not see any *technical* aspect of the system being discussed in this thread [or threads, per the multiple "Subject:"; the OP with subject "AS/400 Server" was even threaded within another entirely unrelated discussion topic <ugh>], nor any technical question that was originally asked in\by the OP. Of course the archives seem rarely to thread my replies properly, so my message will probably stand alone as an apparent new message, with a "Re:" subject. <sigh>