|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class)|
How about a blurb on "SSP" (System Service Program), the OS for the S/32, S/34 and S/36 minis as well as "CPF" (Control Program Facility) for the S/38?
Project "Silverlake" was IBM's effort to merge the two OSes into what is now known as "OS/400"
The goal is to enable modern web 2.0 applications on the platform. - Websphere and java have been available on iSeries systems for years. How are MySQL and PHP suddenly 'enabling' Web 2.0 applications? Web 2.0 is not tied to any particular platform, it's a rather nebulous label that covers any number of design and interoperability principles which can be implemented on any platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Linux mentionned as an Operating System
Operating systems vs application hosts
About the sentence Depending on your point of view, i5/OS and all previous versions, are not actually operating systems. They are in fact application hosts. at the end of the page: If i5/OS is not an operating system, what part of the system on the System i is? Isn't i5/OS managing the hardware and software resources on the system? A lot of it via the SLIC, which is also a part of i5/OS.
I would like to suggest to remove this sentences...
Stephanvaningen 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
About the comment on whether i5/OS is an operating system or not. Read the paragraph "A Poor Choice for a Name" in this article http://systeminetwork.com/article/what-iseries
The article is written by Frank Soltis. He states that SLIC is the OS, i5/OS is not, and also that SLIC is not a part of i5/OS.
tvlooy 21:37, 22 Aug 2008 (UTC)
i5/OS on pSeries
AFAIK, AIX can run on i5 (or newer) machines, but i5/OS (or OS/400) can't run on pSeries. If this is not true, put back the reference to pSeries machines, but for now, I'm going to remove it. Ayengar 17:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Both System i and System p are based upon the same Power processors so AIX and i5/OS can run on either system. IBM restricts which System p models i5/OS can run on but this is a marketing restriction, not a technical restriction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsg uk (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I work for an i5 dev shop that includes a fair bit of Java work, and our experience has been that Java is far faster on all other platforms. If someone has evidence to the contrary, please cite your sources, give release caveats if necessary (ie., JDK 1.5 on V6R1 or above, etc).
Integrated OS and Hardware Maintenance
I've added a statement to redress a prvious edit that rightly removed the "no -maintenance" corporate line from IBM and replaced it with a more accurate statement. I'm interested in this particularly because the i from IBM is a long lived "appliance" platform and while various NEWish platforms have "self healing" and updating features It seems that i is the longest lived and it should be in the intro as a differentiating feature. It may be that with some joint effort a section might be added to explain and cross reference this feature as likely non expert readers should see this and be able to comprehend the depth of capacity that lies behind a simple statement. --Seanwong (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I listed that the features section read like an advert - which was promptly removed by JaconaFrere
My reason was the paragraph that read: BM designed IBM i as a "turnkey" operating system, requiring little or no on-site attention from IT staff during normal operation. For example, IBM i has a built-in DB2 database which does not require separate installation. Disks are multiply redundant, and can be replaced on line without interrupting work. Hardware and software maintenance tasks are integrated. System administration has been wizard-driven for years, even before that term was defined. This automatic self-care policy goes so far as to automatically schedule all common system maintenance, detect many failures and even order spare parts and service automatically. Organizations using i sometimes have sticker shock when confronting the cost of system maintenance on other systems.
This reads to me in an uncyclopedic manner - for instance, 'wizard-driven for years, even before that term was defined' and 'Organizations using i sometimes have sticker shock when confronting the cost of system maintenance on other systems.'.
I won't add the tag back - but I maintain that this paragraph needs to be rewritten to sound less like a sales pitch and more like an unbiased discussion of its features. Lochok (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)