Re: [IBMiOSS] Updates to 5733OPS

I have to disagree Larry.

I have no problem with _adding_ a more "more open source like” approach. But keep the current one.

Entering into this new OS world is hard enough for the existing base without making it harder.


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com

On Aug 1, 2016, at 10:15 AM, DrFranken <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would agree that IBM needs to come up with a new way to distribute this stuff. It needs to be more open source like and easier to add new options and features and do the dependency stuff as well.

However they have at least created a way to distribute it through standard means and that is good - way better than waiting!!

- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis

www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.

On 7/31/2016 10:26 PM, John Yeung wrote:

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Pete Helgren <pete@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't suggest a new way to install, BUT if having all 15 options
installed, even if they are "placeholders", is a requirement then the
install license program routine should install them all. Stuff that is
required during install should happen well, um, should happen automagically
(IMHO).

That's not an unreasonable expectation. After all, by now most
open-source technologies have package managers that are smart enough
to install all prerequisites automatically, if possible.

Backing up a bit, the whole idea of having fixed slots for this kind
of software is kind of crazy to me. I mean, sometime down the road, if
all goes well, it seems reasonable to expect that there will be more
than 15 "options". I'm not an admin, but this aspect of 5733-OPS feels
akin to "well, OK, let's put 5 'future fields' in our PF; that way we
won't have to recompile for the next new business requirement or two"
followed up a few years later by "OK, we're out of future fields, so
it's time to recompile, and while we're at it, don't forget to put in
another 5... no, make it 10 future fields this time, yeah, that should
be good", etc.

Before people try to pick it apart: It's not meant to be a very close
analogy; it's meant to convey the *feeling* I get when I hear people
talk about 5733-OPS PTF issues.

John Y.

--
This is the IBMi Open Source Roundtable (OpenSource) mailing list
To post a message email: OpenSource@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource
or email: OpenSource-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/opensource.