>Not every vendor is guilty of the problems you continually allege.
I'm not the only one that 'continually' alleges. And, if there are vendors with better practices, I have only met two. I may not have travelled as many miles as some of you, but key management for the mainframe is the second worst idea that I have seen for software asset management. The worst was tier-based pricing. Every vendor I have dealt with has caused us key issues at least once in the last year, except one. We have 15 products that we are paying for directly, rather than through our service provider. 7 of them have keys. Even the 'perpetual' keys have caused us problems. I am (obviously) NOT a fan of them. If I could find a work-alike, I would. (I have for two). In both cases, one is key-based the other is not. We are in the process of evaluating application change management software and I have recommended against two vendors because they are key-based. We have only two vendors that have implemented 'good' key-based solutions. One is SYNCHSORT - the grace period is so long, it doesn't cause us issues. The other will remain nameless because naming it will name the competitor that has lousy support, poor key management, M-F/9-5, and no grace period. We switched to this 'other', because of better support and the potential to develop emergency keys at their support web-site. If I have to have keys, that's the best option out of a bad licence enforcement methodology. Many vendors manage their licencing without the introduction of points of instability into the customers environment. Also, as somebody pointed out, no large company wants bad press! Most mainframe shops are large companies. So, why would they/we want to be outed for bad practices like this? We have been tarred with the brush that has been used on the Windows types and their poor practices. It is irrelevant that not all vendors have such bad ways of implementation. It is relevant that the ones we are forced to use do. Some of it is poor process (A/R or key management), poor implementation, poor communication, or fat fingers. It's nice that some have good implementation. But, we are not their customers. You have to play the hand your dealt. The better draw comes when you can get rid of the keys. Who, in their right mind, wants to add single points of vulnerability in an already complex environment? Especially, one where management is seriously looking for alternatives, at many companies. You keep up with complex/confusing implementations, and we can argue about the temperature of a burning house! - Too busy driving to stop for gas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
