Skip to Main Content
IBM Power Ideas Portal

This portal is to open public enhancement requests against IBM Power Systems products, including IBM i. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Search existing ideas

Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,

Post your ideas
  1. Post an idea.

  2. Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.

  3. Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.

Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use

Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.

IBM Unified Ideas Portal ( - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM. - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.

Status Not under consideration
Workspace IBM i
Created by Guest
Created on Oct 16, 2018

A more conventional filesystem than /QSYS.LIB

Please create a new filesystem that allows access to QSYS objects using a more "conventional" layout (i.e., not reminiscent of the AS/400).

e.g., Don't include object type in the name. Treat libraries and multi-member files as directories (no need for ".LIB" for ".FILE"), and single-member files and individual members of a multimember file as files. QSYS should not treated as the top level of the hierarchy.. it's just another directory.

If conflicts occur due to different object types having the same name, either an error can be thrown, or they can be differentiated by some convention. The key point is that this is a very rare occurrence, and not something to design a new filesystem around.

Source member should be exposed as straight text, with source line & source date removed.

In the use case examples below, this new filesystem is proposed as /QFS.

Use Case:

=> runsql 'insert into values(''A'')' commit(*NONE)

=> call qp2term
> ls -ltrR /QFS/mylib/one*
-rwx---rwx 1 6050 0 3 Oct 16 14:45 ONE

> ls -ltrR /QFS/MYLIB/multi
total 0
drwxr-sr-x 2 me 0 8192 Oct 16 14:45 .
drwxr-sr-x 26 me 0 45056 Oct 16 14:44 ..

Idea priority Medium
  • Guest
    Apr 10, 2020

    Thank you for submitting this request, however we must decline it.

    Each file system has its own set of characteristics. The QSYS.LIB file system has the characteristics of the traditional or native objects on the IBM i. This means the QSYS.LIB file system must support the characteristics provided by the libraries and other native objects on the IBM i. The library support allows for objects of different types to have the same name and this is not something we can restrict from the file system, nor is it rare.
    For that reason the naming for objects in the QSYS.LIB file system is a 10.6 convention. (Up to 10 character name followed by up to 6 character type extension.)

    Libraries and physical files already have the behavior of a directory object in that they contain a list of objects attached to it.

    Mixing native library interfaces and file system interfaces to operate on the same set of objects often have unexpected results including the behavior you see with the additional text shown from a member. The integrated file system interfaces will read the stream of data that is stored in the member, whatever that may be. Mixing native and file system interfaces on the same object is not recommended but not restricted.

    The integrated file system is restricted on what it can/cannot do by the underlying object support.

  • Guest
    Nov 7, 2018

    Yeah, FUSE support would be a killer feature and I'd love to see it if IBM can pull it off in a timely manor. Heck, I'd even support having the ability to mount a WebDAV folder.

    On the other hand, we need a sane filesytem that utilizes QSYS as soon as possible, and breaking this out as a separate request keeps the focus on the business problem & not the technical approach to solving it. Perhaps the existing code for handling /QSYS.LIB can be reused & repurposed, or some other technique for addressing the need might emerge. I'm +1 to any technical approach.

  • Guest
    Oct 17, 2018

    I like this request. The goal is the same as for my request

    However your QFS is a kind of implementation on top of FUSE that is ready to use. My solution is to make your solution possible to implement by your self, by IBM or an other ISV.