You, for one, have been out of the game for 5 years now and are extraordinarily unlikely to buy an IBM product (except perhaps for personal use) anyway.
Who said I was out of the "game". I do free consulting to not for profit groups. Right now I am helping one not for profit company to size out a machine for their use. BTW I do have a MAC and would stay away from any IBM-PC products as well as any MS products, although on the PC side it is easier to stay away from IBM than MS.
True, IBM's z/OS UNIX support may not always be what we might hope it could be - compared only with some other select portions of z/OS components. HOWEVER, IBM's z/OS UNIT support is LIGHT-YEARS, maybe parsecs, farther ahead than any other Unix vendor's support (including, unfortunately, other IBM brands such as AIX).
I will agree that the z/os support is far better than any other vendor but components like their UNIX component is just plain poor. I was just point out that at least one IBM "component" is extremely deficient. I did not mean to cast dispersion on all IBM, I apologize if by innuendo or by not saying anything that the rest of IBM is lousy. JUST the *UNIX* , IMO is terrible. I did point out the COBOL compiler as being poor. At GUIDE and SHARE 10 years ago IBM stood up and swore that they were trying to do better at documentation. This is just one case where they are *NOT* doing better (in fact worse). One of the things that IBM said when they went OCO they were going to do a LOT better at documentation. The UNIX and COBOL compiler are two components that seemed to have evaded the promise. I would suggest that the people at IBM who made those promises are probably no longer there (through retirements and rifts probably), its a shame as SHARE is not holding IBM to their promise.
------SNIP---------------------------------------------------- 5 days. Huge difference and my management has ALWAYS understood what they were paying for and what they were getting.
Again I never said Z/os was "poor" just UNIX components. See above. Way back when we had a machine down (brand new) and as they said the sky's darkened with IBM types. They got the problem resolved (long tri lead) in 1 or 2 days IBM in the old days was great. In the new days you can't have access to a sales type unless you are a 3000 MIP shop (maybe more since the last time I checked). Now its 1-800 number and you lucky to get someone that can speak z/os let alone ordering issues for z/os products. Yes I know you can get someone once in a while but not often. IBM, IMO has let down the customers by dropping the sales and Se and PSR (to an extent) . Yes IBM support is for the most part excellent but there are areas where they are NOT. About 10 years ago when I was doing a servpac I had issues with it and ended up talking with a german person. That person while knowledgeable let me know that I had no right asking questions and to do it like the manual said. Incredibly poor service, IMO. I have been critical about that event ever since. I have also been critical about IBM education while they at times do an OK jobs the "newer" education, IMO is quite honestly below average and maybe just plain bad. I had one class where the instructor was telling the students with the SERVPAC that sysprogs where no longer needed.
IBM's committment to mainframe service certainly seems to extend through the product line, at least as far as I have ever personally seen as a customer. (I'm a current customer, by the way.) ----------------------SNIP--------------------------------------
In the past I have talked with LEVEL 2 (not as far as I know cobol team) so again I was talking about LEVEL 2, *BUT* Tom and another compatriot on here (don't remember his name) have steadfastly said that the compiler does not need a M&C. Every time I have had to deal with level 2 they came up with an explanation that was IMO out of left field. I asked for a doc apar to explain the msg and was refused. I should have taken it to the duty manager I know, but I had users breathing down my neck for an explanation and was happy to pass along the info to them. The answer I get from the apologists seem to indicate that if you don't know guess what the msg was trying to say.
Besides, how many COBOL application programmers read the manuals anyway? I cannot tell you the LARGE number of times I have had to read the documentation to them over the phone (or in person) because they were too lazy to read and understand the material. If the compiler writers were simply trying to overcome customer organizational documentation blockades by allowing the apps person the ability to produce a listing instead of trying to order a (one-time pricey) manual then I say more power to IBM for seeing where the customer problems were and being creative at circumventing them.
Its the proverbial 3AM phone call what does this message mean I couldn't find it so call the sysprog. There is always the I@@@@270s (made up) it says call your sysprog well I am the sysprog and I don't have the foggiest what it means, at least with a M&C I can guess. So I call IBM and they tell me its self explanatory then what? If I told that to a joe blow programmer I would be brought up on a warning for not kissing the ass of the programmer. Ed
-- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
