In a recent note unmask]> said: > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:52:04 -0600 > > To do this, the mainframe has to give the power to the terminal > program - allowing it to ask for as many rows and columns as it wants, > without assuming a particular terminal size. > Bravo!
But you do realize, don't you, that you're trying to drag the mainframe, user interface kicking and screaming, into the 21st century? (Well, maybe, at least the 1980's.) As for ISPGUI vs. WSA, etc., I have users of a class with a minority requirement. They wish to edit mainframe files with the genuine ISPF/PDF. Many of them are using clones: UniSPF, THE, etc. And, I'd like to provide a facility where they can click on a menu item on the workstation and launch ISPF/PDF for that file, running on the mainframe, and displaying on the workstation, without contention from other sessions the user may have active on the mainframe. I experimented with REXEC launching ISPGUI. ISPGUI is ugly. Does ISPGUI support color? I'd still like the real McCoy. And it's moronic that in order to determine whether ISPGUI should be allowed to open a window on the workstation, ISPGUI opens a window to ask the user. Ironically, it's easy to use REXEC to launch xterm on the mainframe, starting a vi session, displaying on the workstation. But this provides no particular benefit to anyone. All the files of interest are NFS mounted on both mainframe and workstation, so transfer is not a concern. What's wrong with FTP, anyway? As for the lack of a Linux agent mentioned elsewhere in this thread, hasn't IBM heard of the multi-platform X11 protocol? -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
