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 (https://ideas.ibm.com).
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
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Specific links you will want to bookmark for future use
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
Interesting requirement. I might suggestion a more practical approach is for IBM to provide an Enable Legacy Tools feature, or perhaps more appropriately, a disable legacy tools feature.
However, if they would separate out the legacy compilers and tools from the bundled licensed program they have today, that might also work. They do currently separate out and users can avoid installing Options 5 and 6 (S36E and S38 environment) support. But in 5770WDS users can also opt to not install (or uninstall) option 32,33,34,42, and 43. That could work for an immediate solution. But the the request is to have those features installed and then limit who could do that more easily, IBM probably won't do that. But you could by creating a command that restricts authority to those features based on User Profile. Perhasp your programmer could have a Supplemental Group Profile to which you gran *EXCLUDE authority to those things so they're restricted from using what is installed. Just a suggestion.
Thank you for submitting your request for enhancement. IBM does not intend to implement this request at this time.
The best way to encourage programmers to move to new technologies is to make the new technology just better and easier to use.
Almost no one is using RPG400. Since the bigger field name and many more features are just better and easier.
Almost all programmers use %EOF, %FOUND etc. instead of indicators.
This RFE does not define any technical or practical enhancements, which it is that the E in RFE stands for. The implementation of this request would do nothing but add useless complexity.
This request serves no other purpose than the submitters intention to educate or discipline users and/or developers.
Educating people is not the job of an operating system.
Joe
Nothing in this RFE is going to disrupt a developer. What they will do is setup startup programs to their user profiles to automatically stuff them into this "AS/400" environment, and then no one will be the wiser.
Quite frankly nothing is going to move developers to newer technology until something dramatic forces them to. For instance, if IBM decided to remove PDM completely in 7.5, that would force developers to move to RDi. But do I see that happening? No.
And, like I said in a previous comment, I'm pretty sure IBM has more important enhancements to worry about.
This request is a classic example of why there should be a No button for voting.
Jason
Nothing in this RFE is going to disrupt a developer. What they will do is setup startup programs to their user profiles to automatically stuff them into this "AS/400" environment, and then no one will be the wiser.
Quite frankly nothing is going to move developers to newer technology until something dramatic forces them to. For instance, if IBM decided to remove PDM completely in 7.5, that would force developers to move to RDi. But do I see that happening? No.
And, like I said in a previous comment, I'm pretty sure IBM has more important enhancements to worry about.
This request is a classic example of why there should be a No button for voting.
Jason
I have added this post to the IBM i Professionals Group on LinkedIn to address some of the misconceptions.
I submitted this RFE 133860: Create an AS/400 environment, similar to S/36 environment.
What it IS:
A means to disrupt developers on IBM i who are working with older approaches, technologies, tools, techniques. Disruption does not mean prevention.
What is is NOT #1:
It is not intended to remove anything from IBM i. A key part of the legacy of IBM i is to maintain backwards compatibility - nothing should be removed.
For example, the RPG cycle is a core part of RPG. If you use the cycle, you're probably using SEU. By moving SEU into an AS/400 environment, a developer will not be prevented from using SEU, but will have to navigate to that environment before developing with SEU - a nudge to have them realize they are working in a backwards-compatible environment.
What is is NOT #2:
It is not intended to remove runtime capability. Most older programs and queries should be able to be executed in the native IBM i environment without disruption. CALL and RUNQRY should work in the native environment, but STRSEU and WRKQRY would require navigating to the AS/400 environment first.
This request makes no sense what so ever, and I don't think IBM is going to waste time on it. First off the OS is IBM i and it should not matter how you code, what you code in, or even what you want to call the platform. A subset of IBM i relegated to a subsystem like we had for S/36 would be fine if AS/400 was a separate platform from IBM i. In this case it isn't. There are FAR more important things to worry about like moving off 5250 and enhancing RPG than to spend time on requests like this.
Jason
Good idea, a tool to enforce the notion that this platform is NOT "AS/400" or "iSeries". If commands like STRPDM, STRSEU do NOT belong in the modern IBM i (agreed!), then the next logical step would be to finally recognize RDi as the integral part of the platform. That IBM still treats RDi as a milk cow would be inconsistent with the clear AS/400 separation that this RFE rightfully calls for.
Free RDi (or "RDi Lite" - a term borrowed from another RFE) is long overdue IMO.