I don't really care how the issue is resolved, whether APAR or PTF. As
long as we've got friends like Peter and Jim to help us serve our
companies, and customers, better, I'm all for it! WAD or BAD doesn't
have a great distinction for me; I just want the best service I can give
my company, and ultimately my company's customers. When people like
Peter, Jim and other IBM'ers are willing to help, I'm grateful enough
that I refuse to "look the gift horse in the mouth". They're trying to
do their best for their customers, just as we are. It's just that their
customers are a somewhat different subset of society than ours, so
there's a somewhat different viewpoint involved.
I can only say "THANK YOU" to ALL the IBM'ers who are involved, however
peripherally, in our discussions here. And ditto to all the other
manufacturers' representatives who offer their help and advice here.
Those who disagree, feel to "flame on" in my direction.......... :-D
Rick
---
Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes??
----------------------<snip>-------------------------
...
... Again
came the reply that this was the design of the msgid filter and the
design was not going to be changed, period. ...
For a long time it was (and I assume still is) IBM's policy that APARs
are reports of "code defects" where the code does not correctly
implement the design. There was no such thing as a "design defect".
No matter how flawed the design, changing the design was viewed
as an enhancement. "Broken as Designed" was not an APARable
condition.
Luckily, some support teams are willing to bend that rule if the flaw
is really obvious. It helps if desired behavior matches documented
behavior.
-----------------------------<unsnip>------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
