I appreciate the continued discussion. It's interesting banter.
I have indeed opened an ETR with IBM as a low-priority problem. Progress is
as expected, slow, though I have gotten the support person to agree there
is/are issue(s).
I'm not sure how this would be a "requirement." I just want the code to work
as documented. Untimately, I would prefer the code to work logically and
precisely under control of the systems programmer. I'm afraid the end result
will be changed documentation instead. If that's all I get, I plan to continue
pushing until the documentation clearly outlines the limitations and
restrictions
that are currently hidden in the code.
As for Chris Mason's reference to "incompetent" developers, I would not be so
harsh. I certainly appreciate Chris's support and in-depth knowledge of
networks, and have often found his comments to be quite valuable. I have
never worked for IBM, but I have worked with their support for over 30 years.
Some time ago IBM would not have tolerated the 'sloppy' implementation of
system symbols in USS tables. ('Sloppy' is my term). These days, though, as
with quite a few US-based companies, 'competent' means 'good enough'.
And, 'good enough' means just barely enough to meet the designer's specs,
ignoring any obvious or discovered shortcomings. It's not the developer's job
to point out flaws in the design, and oftentimes, doing so only results in the
developer being reprimanded by "incompetent" managers for going outside the
scope of the project, even it it could produce a better final product. It's
also
not the tester's job to do more than test the ability of the code to perform
the bare minimum to meet the design, nor to even understand subtle
characteristics of the environment that could affect the ability of the product
to work under all conditions. So, not knowing what constraints the developers
may have had, I hesitate to single them out as incompetent, when it may
actually be the environment under which they work that values quantity over
quality and causes them to produce less than stellar results.
Sorry. I read over that paragraph a couple times, and I just don't see how to
make my point without the soap box. I'll make a note to have my soap box
burned and the horse buried later. (references to preaching from atop a soap
box, and to beating a 'dead horse' (overworked subject) to death).
BTW, for everyone (anyone?) who bothered to read this far, how many use a
custom USS table? Is it just Chris, Patrick, myself and a couple other people
in
the world?
Patrick said:
>The product is "working as designed". If you want this changed you're going
>to have to submit a Requirement with a very strong business case. Fixing.
>USS design flaws isn't going to be very high on anybody's list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
