In <[email protected]>, on
12/30/2009
at 01:09 PM, "McKown, John" <[email protected]> said:
>Too true. Back around 1978, I worked for the City of Ft. Worth (Texas).
>We had a 145 and needed an upgrade to a 158 type box. Tandem bid their
>non-compatible machine. Of course, it did not meet the RFP. When we got
>an Itel (NAS) 158 equivalent, Tandem threatened to sue because "the RFP
>was too restrictive!" and "we could convert all our OS/VS1 application -
>batch and CICS to native Tandem and still have it cost less!"
Companies like that are easy to shut up by agreeing with them and showing
them the penalty clauses and SLA's they would have to sign off on.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
