On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Wayne Driscoll wrote:
Ed,
You state "vendors ignore customers quite often." Realize that
vendors
have more than one customer, and doing things EXACTLY as you like may
cause problems for the bulk of the other customers (or, often, for one
or two huge customers), and therefore, the vendor does not make the
change requested. Also, customers frequently ignore vendor (including
IBM) recommendations. For example, how many times have Peter
Relson or
Jim Mulder pointed out that doing thinks like deleting linklist
datasets
while the system thinks they are in use is A BAD idea, yet people
still
do it.
Wayne,
I do know that CA has a SHARE like event at least once a year where
customers "have input" (submit requirements). Others either do not do
this or (more likely) don't advertise the event, IMO. I have also
seen where customers do submit requirements and the company acts on
them. Unfortunately the people who run these events are either shills
for the vendor or do not have the common sense to look at
requirements and really understand the impact of such requirements.
Example (not to bad mouth the vendor) SDSI was asked to change a
default not to put out stats at the end of job. CA said sure and then
did it. What SHOULD have been done is that SDSI should have put a
start up option either to do so or not. This is a simple case of
people not understanding the product AND the simple(r) change and
less impact than their interpretations. The request should never have
made it through design. Let alone being submitted without a thorough
thought process. Simple, yep you bet but all to often the company
looks at a solution and bangs it out without careful thought.
Another company was doing dynamic allocations they created datasets
that were temporary (at least according to the the parms past in
dynalloc) but the datasets had a real name ie JOE.BLOW.BX instead of
the sys2007 .... They were asked to change it and they refused not
because they would have mucked up SMS constructs but because no one
else had complained when informed of the issues they said the company
would have to turn cartwheels as SMS was their baby(??!!!!!!!).
I am not really pointing fingers at any company just observing that
companies do not understand (and implement) items without
understanding the need or the issues. Just not listening with their
ears, IMO.
I am sure we could say IBM does the same, but in their defense they
do seem to listen better at requirements and implement things with
more thought that OEM vendors do. ALTHOUGH once IBM digs their heels
in nothing short of a miracle can get them to change their mind.
I do agree with some ones entry on sort there can never be defaults
that will please everyone. Its a no win situation, IMO. The defaults
however should be easily changeable without a compile.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
