The Naming of the System - Revision history

PoC: Typo

2024-03-01T15:50:23Z

Typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 1 March 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Some people insist that the current '''IBM i for Business''' OS running on current '''IBM Power Systems''' hardware has nothing to do with the initial AS/400 platform anymore, and as such shall not be called AS/400. This is meant to prevent confusion, and to emphasize that the modern system it not the same as its ancestor, which is commonly seen as dusty, old-fashioned, hopelessly outdated and legacy stuff<ref>Not only by IBM sales people but also by certain IBM i enthusiasts.</ref> that must be replaced by current state of the art technology. By insisting on a new name, these people assume that those other people will eventually learn that the above systems are distinct.		Some people insist that the current '''IBM i for Business''' OS running on current '''IBM Power Systems''' hardware has nothing to do with the initial AS/400 platform anymore, and as such shall not be called AS/400. This is meant to prevent confusion, and to emphasize that the modern system is not the same as its ancestor, which is commonly seen as dusty, old-fashioned, hopelessly outdated and legacy stuff<ref>Not only by IBM sales people but also by certain IBM i enthusiasts.</ref> that must be replaced by current state of the art technology. By insisting on a new name, these people assume that those other people will eventually learn that the above systems are distinct.

	While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>		While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>

PoC: Updated, less harsh

2023-05-19T14:28:51Z

Updated, less harsh

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 19 May 2023
Line 3:		Line 3:
	While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>		While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>

	Taking into account that programmers try to modernize applications by more or less shifting user-program interaction from character based screens to web browser based solutions, users will cease to call the application "AS/400" but by another arbitrary name, like the function of the application.		Taking into account that programmers try to modernize applications by more or less shifting user-program interaction from character based screens to web browser based solutions, users will probably cease to call the application "AS/400", but substitute another arbitrary name, like the function of the application.

	== So what's the difference, then? ==		== So what's the difference, then? ==
Line 21:		Line 21:
	* to comply with EOL policies by IBM, so if anything goes wrong, IBM can be blamed without them shrugging and telling that there's no support anymore, because everything is hopelessly too old.		* to comply with EOL policies by IBM, so if anything goes wrong, IBM can be blamed without them shrugging and telling that there's no support anymore, because everything is hopelessly too old.

	~~For these reasons, I refuse to call the aforementioned system anything else but~~ ''AS/400''~~.<ref>Even though I declare myself as a sysadmin.</ref> Everybody knows what's meant by that term~~ and that is the most important point.		Everybody knows what's meant by ''The AS/400'' and that is the most important point.

	== See also ==		== See also ==

PoC: Rework

2022-12-24T14:24:07Z

Rework

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 24 December 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Some people insist that the current '''IBM i for Business''' OS running on current '''IBM Power Systems''' hardware has nothing to do with the initial AS/400 anymore, and as such ~~may~~ not be called AS/400. This is to prevent confusion, and to emphasize that the modern system ~~has nothing to do with~~ it's ancestor, ~~that~~ is commonly seen as dusty, old-fashioned, hopelessly outdated and legacy stuff<ref>Not only by IBM sales people but also by certain IBM i enthusiasts.</ref> that must be replaced by current state of the art technology. By insisting on a new name, these people assume that those other people will eventually learn that the above systems are distinct.		Some people insist that the current '''IBM i for Business''' OS running on current '''IBM Power Systems''' hardware has nothing to do with the initial AS/400 platform anymore, and as such shall not be called AS/400. This is meant to prevent confusion, and to emphasize that the modern system it not the same as its ancestor, which is commonly seen as dusty, old-fashioned, hopelessly outdated and legacy stuff<ref>Not only by IBM sales people but also by certain IBM i enthusiasts.</ref> that must be replaced by current state of the art technology. By insisting on a new name, these people assume that those other people will eventually learn that the above systems are distinct.

	While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>		While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most long standing users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.		Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most long standing users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.

	Seen from a sysadmin's point of view, with every new major release, there came new and often useful functionality, and additional menu items or complete screens. Only in a few occasions, IBM ceased to support certain functionality via green screen. IBM also created a windows-only clickable admin tool in the 1990s that is more or less useful, depending on the task at hand and personal taste of the admin. It provides only a comparably small subset of tasks to do. While it may be sufficient for daily routine tasks for more or less experienced users, the full functionality and flexibility to automate tasks by small programs or scripts can only be exploited by the character based interface.<ref>This is no different from Linux or other UNIX systems.</ref> Also, it is a common misconception that graphical UIs make everything easier. This is only partly true: In every case you need ~~to know~~ what you need to do to finish a given task at hand.		Seen from a sysadmin's point of view, with every new major release, there came new and often useful functionality, and additional menu items or complete screens. Only in a few occasions, IBM ceased to support certain functionality via green screen. IBM also created a windows-only clickable admin tool in the 1990s that is more or less useful, depending on the task at hand and personal taste of the admin. It provides only a comparably small subset of tasks to do. While it may be sufficient for daily routine tasks for more or less experienced users, the full functionality and flexibility to automate tasks by small programs or scripts can only be exploited by the character based interface.<ref>This is no different from Linux or other UNIX systems.</ref> Also, it is a common misconception that graphical UIs make everything easier. This is only partly true: In every case you need some knowledge about ''what you need to do'' to finish a given task at hand. This is different compared to ''How you need to do'' it. In this context, the difference between graphical user interfaces, and text user interfaces.

	== Background ==		== Background ==

PoC: /* So what's the difference, then? */ More precise

2020-03-22T13:33:28Z

So what's the difference, then?: More precise

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 22 March 2020
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most long standing users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.		Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most long standing users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.

	Seen from a sysadmin's point of view, with every new major release, there came new and often useful functionality, and additional menu items or complete screens. Only in a few occasions, IBM ceased to support certain functionality. IBM also created a windows-only clickable admin tool in the 1990s that is more or less useful, depending on the task at hand and personal taste of the admin. It provides only a comparably small subset of tasks to do. While it may be sufficient for daily routine tasks for more or less experienced users, the full functionality and flexibility to automate tasks by small programs or scripts can only be exploited by the character based interface.<ref>This is no different from Linux or other UNIX systems.</ref> Also, it is a common misconception that graphical UIs make everything easier. This is only partly true: In every case you need to know what you need to do to finish a given task at hand.		Seen from a sysadmin's point of view, with every new major release, there came new and often useful functionality, and additional menu items or complete screens. Only in a few occasions, IBM ceased to support certain functionality via green screen. IBM also created a windows-only clickable admin tool in the 1990s that is more or less useful, depending on the task at hand and personal taste of the admin. It provides only a comparably small subset of tasks to do. While it may be sufficient for daily routine tasks for more or less experienced users, the full functionality and flexibility to automate tasks by small programs or scripts can only be exploited by the character based interface.<ref>This is no different from Linux or other UNIX systems.</ref> Also, it is a common misconception that graphical UIs make everything easier. This is only partly true: In every case you need to know what you need to do to finish a given task at hand.

	== Background ==		== Background ==

PoC: /* See also */ Linkfix

2020-03-15T15:52:05Z

PoC: More precise

2020-03-15T15:50:07Z

More precise

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 15 March 2020
Line 15:		Line 15:
	The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data that has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so haven't the base functions of OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.		The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data that has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so haven't the base functions of OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.

	To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>That is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> Probably they are dimly aware that a program needs a computer to run on. How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,		To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users, and interestingly consulters and techs knowing absolutely nothing about it.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>That is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> Probably they are dimly aware that a program needs a computer to run on. How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,
	* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,		* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,
	* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,		* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,
Line 37:		Line 37:

	[[Category: Basic Knowledge]]		[[Category: Basic Knowledge]]
			[[Category: Musings]]

PoC: De-whichified

2020-03-12T22:06:43Z

De-whichified

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 13 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Some people insist that the current '''IBM i for Business''' OS running on current '''IBM Power Systems''' hardware has nothing to do with the initial AS/400 anymore, and as such may not be called AS/400. This is to prevent confusion, and to emphasize that the modern system has nothing to do with it's ancestor, ~~which~~ is commonly seen as dusty, old-fashioned, hopelessly outdated and legacy stuff<ref>Not only by IBM sales people but also by certain IBM i enthusiasts.</ref> ~~which~~ must be replaced by current state of the art technology. By insisting on a new name, these people assume that those other people will eventually learn that the above systems are distinct.		Some people insist that the current '''IBM i for Business''' OS running on current '''IBM Power Systems''' hardware has nothing to do with the initial AS/400 anymore, and as such may not be called AS/400. This is to prevent confusion, and to emphasize that the modern system has nothing to do with it's ancestor, that is commonly seen as dusty, old-fashioned, hopelessly outdated and legacy stuff<ref>Not only by IBM sales people but also by certain IBM i enthusiasts.</ref> that must be replaced by current state of the art technology. By insisting on a new name, these people assume that those other people will eventually learn that the above systems are distinct.

	While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>		While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most long standing users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.		Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most long standing users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.

	Seen from a sysadmin's point of view, with every new major release, there came new and often useful functionality, and additional menu items or complete screens. Only in a few occasions, IBM ceased to support certain functionality. IBM also created a windows-only clickable admin tool in the 1990s ~~which~~ is more or less useful, depending on the task at hand and personal taste of the admin. It provides only a comparably small subset of tasks to do. While it may be sufficient for daily routine tasks for more or less experienced users, the full functionality and flexibility to automate tasks by small programs or scripts can only be exploited by the character based interface.<ref>This is no different from Linux or other UNIX systems.</ref> Also, it is a common misconception that graphical UIs make everything easier. This is only partly true: In every case you need to know what you need to do to finish a given task at hand.		Seen from a sysadmin's point of view, with every new major release, there came new and often useful functionality, and additional menu items or complete screens. Only in a few occasions, IBM ceased to support certain functionality. IBM also created a windows-only clickable admin tool in the 1990s that is more or less useful, depending on the task at hand and personal taste of the admin. It provides only a comparably small subset of tasks to do. While it may be sufficient for daily routine tasks for more or less experienced users, the full functionality and flexibility to automate tasks by small programs or scripts can only be exploited by the character based interface.<ref>This is no different from Linux or other UNIX systems.</ref> Also, it is a common misconception that graphical UIs make everything easier. This is only partly true: In every case you need to know what you need to do to finish a given task at hand.

	== Background ==		== Background ==
	The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data ~~which~~ has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so haven't the base functions of OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.		The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data that has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so haven't the base functions of OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.

	To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>~~Which~~ is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> Probably they are dimly aware that a program needs a computer to run on. How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,		To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>That is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> Probably they are dimly aware that a program needs a computer to run on. How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,
	* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,		* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,
	* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,		* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,

PoC: /* See also */ +Link

2020-03-10T00:29:48Z

PoC: Additions and clarifications

2019-10-23T16:10:39Z

Additions and clarifications

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:10, 23 October 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>		While this statement is true as seen from the hardware evolution's point of view, it's not so true when considering the operating system presentation to the user. When an user does some tasks with OS provided tools via ''green screen'', there are only slight differences. Usually the user only recognizes a certain difference in how fast the system processes requests and that's all about it.<ref>From a system administrator's point of view, there are indeed substantial differences: Added functions result in more [[The Menu System\|menu items]] to choose from, etc.</ref>

			Taking into account that programmers try to modernize applications by more or less shifting user-program interaction from character based screens to web browser based solutions, users will cease to call the application "AS/400" but by another arbitrary name, like the function of the application.

	== So what's the difference, then? ==		== So what's the difference, then? ==
	All efforts to convince people that ''IBM i'' is '''not''' ''AS/400'' will be negated when they ~~see~~ a classic so called ''green screen'' (Terminal Emulator Software, or even a Hardware Terminal) with character based user interface, obviously connected to the latest and greatest ''IBM i on Power Systems''. In fact, the whole discussion revolves around [[About Green Screens and mouse-clickable UIs\|''green screen'' versus ''Point-'n-klick'' UIs]].		All efforts to convince people that ''IBM i'' is '''not''' ''AS/400'' will be negated when they recognize a classic so called ''green screen'' (Terminal Emulator Software, or even a Hardware Terminal) with character based user interface, obviously connected to the latest and greatest ''IBM i on Power Systems''. In fact, the whole discussion most likely revolves around [[About Green Screens and mouse-clickable UIs\|''green screen'' versus ''Point-'n-klick'' UIs]] and apparently not so much about the system's current name, whatever it may be.

	Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.		Character based UIs are considered bad by certain people while applications presenting content in a web browser's window are considered superior by the same ones. ''IBM i'' as well as the ''AS/400'' derive most of their look-and-feel from these green screens. Most new users instinctively hate them. Most long standing users working with the system for years won't welcome changes, because they maximized speed and possibly could do most daily tasks with a blindfold. When presented with a new, browser-based UI, protest will almost certainly arise.

			Seen from a sysadmin's point of view, with every new major release, there came new and often useful functionality, and additional menu items or complete screens. Only in a few occasions, IBM ceased to support certain functionality. IBM also created a windows-only clickable admin tool in the 1990s which is more or less useful, depending on the task at hand and personal taste of the admin. It provides only a comparably small subset of tasks to do. While it may be sufficient for daily routine tasks for more or less experienced users, the full functionality and flexibility to automate tasks by small programs or scripts can only be exploited by the character based interface.<ref>This is no different from Linux or other UNIX systems.</ref> Also, it is a common misconception that graphical UIs make everything easier. This is only partly true: In every case you need to know what you need to do to finish a given task at hand.

	== Background ==		== Background ==
	The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data which has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so ~~hasn~~'t OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.		The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data which has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so haven't the base functions of OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.

	To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned, that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>Which is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> Probably they are dimly aware that a program needs a computer to run on. How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,		To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>Which is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> Probably they are dimly aware that a program needs a computer to run on. How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,
	* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,		* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,
	* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,		* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,
Line 17:		Line 21:
	* to comply with EOL policies by IBM, so if anything goes wrong, IBM can be blamed without them shrugging and telling that there's no support anymore, because everything is hopelessly too old.		* to comply with EOL policies by IBM, so if anything goes wrong, IBM can be blamed without them shrugging and telling that there's no support anymore, because everything is hopelessly too old.

	For these reasons, I refuse to call the aforementioned system anything else but ''AS/400''. Everybody knows what's meant by that term and that is the most important point.		For these reasons, I refuse to call the aforementioned system anything else but ''AS/400''.<ref>Even though I declare myself as a sysadmin.</ref> Everybody knows what's meant by that term and that is the most important point.

	~~If you disagree, you may leave this Wiki alone anytime and build your own~~.

	== See also ==		== See also ==

PoC: /* Background */ Better

2019-03-04T00:18:58Z

Background: Better

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:18, 4 March 2019
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data which has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so hasn't OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.		The AS/400 was designed as a business helper machine, to put it simple. Tasks in classical business environments revolve around structured data which has to be entered, processed, stored, reviewed and maybe printed. This hasn't changed substantially over the course of decades and so hasn't OS/400, i5/OS, IBM i, you name it.

	To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned, that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>Which is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,		To come around full circle: Most people<ref>To be precise: Most users.</ref> still call the latest and greatest IBM i on Power Systems ''AS/400''. They do it because the application they use every day looks the same as in 1989 when it was young and fresh. They probably learned, that this application runs on the AS/400.<ref>Probably when there's downtime needed and the IT department informs the users.</ref> They usually refer to the '''UI of the main application''' as AS/400 and '''not''' the hardware, '''not''' the OS.<ref>Which is tugged away in a dedicated room for stuff like that.</ref> Probably they are dimly aware that a program needs a computer to run on. How can they know that with every decade there has been a replacement of the hardware with accompanying upgrades of the OS,
	* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,		* to keep pace with increasing number of concurrent users as the company grows,
	* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,		* to keep pace with increased storage needs as databases are fed with more and more data,
Line 17:		Line 17:
	* to comply with EOL policies by IBM, so if anything goes wrong, IBM can be blamed without them shrugging and telling that there's no support anymore, because everything is hopelessly too old.		* to comply with EOL policies by IBM, so if anything goes wrong, IBM can be blamed without them shrugging and telling that there's no support anymore, because everything is hopelessly too old.

	For ~~this very same reason~~, I refuse to call the aforementioned system anything else but ''AS/400''. Everybody knows what's meant by that term and that is the most important point.		For these reasons, I refuse to call the aforementioned system anything else but ''AS/400''. Everybody knows what's meant by that term and that is the most important point.

	If you disagree, you may leave this Wiki alone anytime and build your own.		If you disagree, you may leave this Wiki alone anytime and build your own.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 15 March 2020
Line 31:		Line 31:
	** [https://www.helpsystems.com/resources/on-demand-webinars/ibm-i-its-not-just-as400-steve-will IBM i: It’s Not Just AS/400]		** [https://www.helpsystems.com/resources/on-demand-webinars/ibm-i-its-not-just-as400-steve-will IBM i: It’s Not Just AS/400]
	* [http://blog.briteskies.com/blog/did-you-inherit-an-as/400 Did You Inherit an AS/400?] by Bill Onion/Briteskies Blog		* [http://blog.briteskies.com/blog/did-you-inherit-an-as/400 Did You Inherit an AS/400?] by Bill Onion/Briteskies Blog
	* https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/article/ibms-as400-simple-analogy-explains-everything-john-rockwell IBM's AS/400 - A Simple Analogy Explains Everything], John Rockwell LinkedIn		* [https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/article/ibms-as400-simple-analogy-explains-everything-john-rockwell IBM's AS/400 - A Simple Analogy Explains Everything], John Rockwell LinkedIn

	== Footnotes ==		== Footnotes ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, 10 March 2020
Line 31:		Line 31:
	** [https://www.helpsystems.com/resources/on-demand-webinars/ibm-i-its-not-just-as400-steve-will IBM i: It’s Not Just AS/400]		** [https://www.helpsystems.com/resources/on-demand-webinars/ibm-i-its-not-just-as400-steve-will IBM i: It’s Not Just AS/400]
	* [http://blog.briteskies.com/blog/did-you-inherit-an-as/400 Did You Inherit an AS/400?] by Bill Onion/Briteskies Blog		* [http://blog.briteskies.com/blog/did-you-inherit-an-as/400 Did You Inherit an AS/400?] by Bill Onion/Briteskies Blog
			* https://www.linkedin.com/content-guest/article/ibms-as400-simple-analogy-explains-everything-john-rockwell IBM's AS/400 - A Simple Analogy Explains Everything], John Rockwell LinkedIn

	== Footnotes ==		== Footnotes ==