On Mar 5, 2006, at 7:36 PM, Clark Morris wrote:
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.
---------------SNIP_----------------------------------
Excellent idea and if it were doable .. The people that sign the
contracts don't have a clue. It takes a manager to stand up and say
"but" before the contract is sign and whiling to take the heat.
Unfortunately those are getting hard to find. The PFCSK don't care,
its not them who have to worry about such "piddly" concerns.
About 12 years ago I had to back out a major upgrade to MVS because
of cobol issues with an ISV. From then on I made the applications
come in and made them sign off on upgrades. I even had skirmishes
after that but not to the point of down leveling MVS.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
