Re: RDi vs SEU

There's one other point I should be clear on. I'm not saying I agree with
IBM's logic or like it. But I *LOVE* working in RDi compared to SEU. For a
long time I couldn't stand editing CL in it. The round trip to the server
to verify every command was just too slow. But I've come to the point
where I prefer editing CL in RDi. Most of the time I turn off the
automatic syntax checking because that's still slow, but it has gotten
better. I just like having the editor format my statements--plus the
colorization, more source lines viewed, split views, debugging, etc. all
make it worth waiting for a compile to check the syntax of the CL.

"RPG400-L" <rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 04/03/2015 08:08:18
AM:

----- Message from John Yeung <gallium.arsenide@xxxxxxxxx> on Fri, 3
Apr 2015 01:31:55 -0400 -----

To:

"RPG programming on the IBM i (AS/400 and iSeries)"

<rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:

Re: RDi vs SEU

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

7.2. I had to get separate Proofs of Entitlement for ADTS (which is

PDM

+ SEU), Heritage compilers, ILE compilers, and RDi. To be completely
open, IBM gives away entitlements to ADTS so if you bought a compiler

in

the past, you basically get X free seats for SEU here in the future.
But we pay software maintenance on ADTS, so there's that.

Perhaps it's changed, but this was one of my biggest concerns when things
were unbundled. Paying for per seat maintenance on ADTS and RDi would have
put our software maintenance costs higher than our entire Software
Maintenance Agreement (SWMA). But we found out that ADTS was covered by
our standard SWMA. Is a small portion of that dedicated to ADTS? I was
under the impression the standard SWMA was just based on processor tier. I
could be wrong, I've not been involved in that part of any negotiations
since the original AS/400 B-series days.