On Friday, 09/08/2006 at 10:38 AST, "Veilleux, Jon L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mainframe sysprogs mostly suffer from bad press for doing their jobs > very well. Users want to be able to do whatever they want whenever they > want to. This may seem like goodness to one end user, but in the real > business world it is death. > A few users feel that they are burdened by things like protecting the > system from unauthorized updates, and making sure that the code that > gets executed is the code that the vendor sent us. It is not a pleasant > job being the gatekeeper and not usually appreciated (aka your comments) > but is is necessary and in the long run extremely important.
Jon, I think z/OS sysprogs should continue operating their z/OS systems just as their users have come to expect and their business requires. That's where the goodness starts. I feel that when a mainframe goes out the door it's because there wasn't sufficient "grass roots" support for it and that is because the *users* abandoned it in favor of alternatives that are perceived as "good enough". The sysprogs don't make the "buy" decisions, but they *do* influence the opinions of users who *do* influence the buy decision. A bad sysprog will kill the mf straight away. A good sysprog gets the opportunity to *prove* that s/he can provide the same service for less, or better service for the same money. Empire-building is not dead. "I own 60 servers" vs. "I own a mainframe". Who has the power? Alan Altmark Speaking for himself ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
