Re: Apache and .Net

[Ralph Daugherty <rdjfc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's only as strategic as Websphere is strategic, which is pretty 
strategic, but really just a front end to Websphere for all practical 
purposes.

But an important front end due to complexity of J2EE programming, as 
seen in the ads screaming for J2EE capable and experienced programmers.

I get peeved at IBM and their VisualAge point and click stuff to attempt 
to replace programming, similar but more realistic concept here I think, 
that being making the very difficult doable by more.

What I was surprised to see in that Q&A was IBM referring to considering 
open sourcing it. It's a tough call, I think. On the one hand it's real 
value if it cuts down significantly on skill level and quantity of J2EE 
programmers needed to develop a system.

On the other, you have to make a J2EE product like Websphere usable for 
people to use it, and that's what EGL is for. Nature of the beast at 
this point, and lots of competition.

If that is true though, difficult for me to see EGL going from highest 
value WDSc development licenses at thousands of dollars per seat to open 
source.

Having said all that, I've never written a J2EE app and know not much 
more about EGL than how to spell it, so my opinions may reflect that.

 rd


Jon Paris wrote:
> On 11-Aug-08, at 10:44 AM, web400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > [Jon] EGL is a strategic product for IBM.
>
> I had high hopes for EGL - this is depressing news.  With the possible  
> exception of WebSphere, pretty much everything originated within IBM  
> that was flagged as "strategic" ended up in the bit-bucket of time.   
> SAA, AD/Cycle, OS/2, and on.
>
> As I told the Rational folks in Raleigh - whatever you do, don't allow  
> the powers-that-be make EGL strategic.  Oh well - let's hope things  
> are different this time.
>
> Jon Paris
>
> www.Partner400.com
> www.SystemiDeveloper.com