On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:56:03 -0500, Rick Fochtman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I disagree. Barb may very well be under pressure from management that >expects certain condition codes and messages. These same managers may >well fall under the category of "PHB" (pointy-head boss) and have very >little idea of what the messages and checks really mean. > >For checks that may not apply in certain environments, there should be a >mechanism to disable the check, thus deleting the message and improper >return code. I think that there should also be a mechanism such that all >errors be classed as warnings, so the PHB can be kept "fat dumb and >happy". It's an unfortunate fact of life that sometimes know-nothing >managers are a bigger PITA than genuine system problems. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- The consensus helps decide if the check comes enabled or not. That there is a mecahnism to disable the check means the whiners need to turn it off for themselves in they are the minority. Barb;s pointy headed boss is not a reason for the rest of us to suffer. Barb can disable them and then ignore them. But the discussion helps raise the level of awareness whether a larger crowd agrees they are disabling it. Which may help IBM, or any vendor supplying checks, rethink the validity of the check's initial status. Phrased as - if the vendor felt it is an important check for someone, then ship it. A consensus may help decide if it is shipped enabled or disabled. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
