Re: EGL vs. Java

[Joe Pluta <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave Shaw wrote:
> I'm eyeing this change with a bit of dread.  Our machines are P50s with 
> roughly 150 developers.  I could see someone deciding that everyone gets 
> ADTS only as a cost-saving measure.  It would be so much easier to argue the 
> case for getting RDi for those of us who want to use it if PDM wasn't part 
> of the equation so that we would never need ADTS again...
>   
And let me be clear.  Not everyone is going to be happy with this.  It's 
a tough proposition, and IBM put themselves in a deep, deep hole by 
giving away WDSC for so long.  They had to figure out something to bring 
in revenue, and I can tell you that this option is better than others 
that have been floated during the past year or so (none of which I'll 
share, so don't ask <grin>).  I think IBM tried very hard to move us 
from tier-based to user-based without a lot of disruption.  I think the 
number of entitlements may be a bit low, especially on the larger boxes, 
but that's something for you to negotiate with IBM.  But the general 
idea -- compilers on tiers, broken up by functional unit, and 
development tools by user, with seat-based pricing -- is solid.

It won't be a complete winner until things like SDA and RLU are 
completely replaced, and if there's a business requirement that someone 
like Dave Shaw has that exists in PDM and isn't addressed in RDi, then 
now is the time to put your cards no the table and ask IBM.  Tell them 
why you need fast access to the first N members of a source file, and 
maybe someone can put in a quicklist feature for a table.

Joe