> Fixing USS design flaws isn't going to be very high on anybody's list.
But having enough complaints from different people (not just me - after all, we're just someone out in Europe!) may get a few of the 'suits' thinking, and a few technicians in a position to do something about it might start pushing for better solutions and for introducing better designs! >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. Great. Sounds like something from the mouse-pusher platform. Will be the death of z/OS as we know and love it. And going back to mean USS=OMVS: We've had three problems when telnetting into OMVS: abend913 followed by abendB78 (wrong tcb for getmain) followed by abend0C4. The first was declared a problem in our BPX setup, the second (occuring in resolver code) will most probably get fixed in BPX code, and the third already has an apar in BPX code. There isn't much work left in the actual 'exploiting' component when everything eventually harks back to BPX code! Barbara Nitz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
