What is your problem, Mike? Why do you hang on to these antiquated things? Get over it ... move on. How else can we keep our web presence fresh and new and certain development teams in cash flow? Your expectations of usability and reliability are just WAY TOO HIGH. You need to clean-up your attitude and flush your janitorial comments and get back to cranking the knob on that washing machine. (Wait ... is that an idiot light flashing on your dashboard? I wonder what it could mean? Aahhh ... who cares! ... Ctrl-Alt-Del)
</sarcastic> I second Dave Boyes' (implied, but clear) suggestion about getting the web interface to work with a text mode browser. To paraphrase Steve Carl, if it's a web application which requires a specific browser, then it's client/server but NOT a web application. Or in this case, a web application which has nothing to do with graphics requiring the graphical browsers. > Does it really cost IBM anything to support the **unchanging** > greenscreen IBMLink? I don't know of any reason that I should give > a rat's patoot about the "vm code to support the new 2007 daylight > saving time extension." IMHO that really sounds like a weak attempt > to find a justification for abandoning something that still works > perfectly. To some, this design point seems obvious: use a common back-end for the green screen and the web toy. And I truly do not know that IBM has not done that in this case. (But I do know of other applications which FAIL TO.) The logic seems unassailable, the savings immediate and perpetual, and the value of the quicker interface echoed in forums like this one. When you make mention of your withdrawal pain, make it clear, the point is NOT 3270. The point is "plain text", which is quicker, more reliable, more automatable, and cheaper. And your beloved command line is many steps beyond 2D text on all points, especially automation. -- R;
