On 4 Mar 2006 10:27:37 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Gould) wrote:
>On Mar 4, 2006, at 12:00 AM, Ted MacNEIL wrote: > >>> The vendor told him that if they tried using >> anything but cobol 2.3 they were on their own. In another case a >> payroll program was recompiled (with a current cobol compiler) and of >> course it did not work. The vendor told him to compile it with the >> old compiler. They had just too many issues with all the new >> compilers. >> >> I have a real problem depending on any sort of unsupported software >> to run the business. >> Why are customers compiling vendor supported code? >> Why are ISV's not getting current. > >Ted: > >They don't have access to it and it costs them $$. A user bought the >product and through politics got it installed now *WE* had to >maintain it. You cannot go back to the user and tell him to get lost >because its no longer supported. Politics are a real fact of life. >What is real crummy about this the damned product (IIRC) cost less >than $500 (US). > >The payroll program is another ball of wax. The politics in that are >out of my sphere totally, but needless to say that it is a highly >visible production job(s). It runs weekly and I broached the vendor >one time when we had a smallish question. The person at the other end >of the phone would not say for sure as to why but I did get out of >him that we weren't the first to ask. So its on hold . The vendor >rules the roost in cases like this. I suspect that companies are keeping Windows 98 computers for similar reasons. In all cases, the software contract should be written such that the product can run in current environments (no requiring that a company stay on a back level of z/OS or LE) and that if a product is delivered in source form that it be supported on current compilers within 6 months of general availability of said compilers. Using departments requiring that back level products be kept should be charged for the costs of those back level products. Of course top management has to be informed of why this is good and necessary for the company and then support the policy. > >Ed > >> >> We had problems with the newer COBOL only because IBM finally >> stopped supporting constructs >> as they said they would. >> >> - >> -teD >> >> Im an enthusiastic proselytiser of the universal panacea I believe >> in! >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
