Steve I could say that IBM-MAIN posts were getting worse what with commenting before the quoted post(s) - much preferred by yours truly - or commenting after the quoted posts and maybe not having quoted lines preceded by greater than signs, it can be quite difficult to find the fresh text!
Chris Mason On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:46:07 -0400, Thompson, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Ed Gould >Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:34 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: IBM error messages getting worse? > >--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Patrick O'Keefe <[email protected]> wrote: > >From: Patrick O'Keefe <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: IBM error messages getting worse? >To: [email protected] >Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 2:29 PM > >On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:21:22 -0400, David Andrews=20 ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > >I think you make a very good point.=A0 There have always been >absolutely inscrutable MVS messages and there will probably >be new ones.=A0 But there are many prefectly clear ones, too, and >there is that message id you can look up, run searches on, submit >RCFs on (if those still exist ... and are read), or even open PMRs on=20 >if they are so bad as to be considered a defect.=A0 I don't think it >is=20 >getting worse. > >Pat O'Keefe=A0=20 > >- >Pat:I am not sure I agree , but I think that most USS messages are at >best = >inscrutable. Take TCP as an example most of the messages I had to look >up a= >t the time did not follow the IBM convention as to importance (W,I,E,C) >and= > then they didn't set the condition code to match the message. The >conditio= >n code IMO was the worse and it looked to me like they threw the dice >when = >it came to setting codes. Frankly I gave up and after reading the >message i= >n the manual 2 or 3 times and it still did not make sense I opened a >PMR. I= > very rarely got anyplace with the PMR as the "USS" people live in the >own = >universe separate from IBM. To me they decided to thumb their nose at >the r= >est of IBM and said we are going to operate as we like to hell with IBM >and= > their rules. >I think the LE people weren't quite as bad, but they are up there. Do >*NOT*= > get me going on COBOL messages. Their so called self describing >messages m= >ust have been made up on a bad acid trip. >In the past, say 1970 or so we can all agree that some messages like >"call = >your systems programmer" were nightmares especially at 3AM and there was >no= > IBM support to call back then.=A0 >Since then (thanks to GUIDE anyway) we made the messages a MAJOR issue >and = >I can still remember 1 GUIDE where the pubs people came into GUIDE and >prom= >ised to do a better job. It actually did work, thank goodness. Messages >act= >ually started to mean something and they were reasonable english >straightfo= >rward and it might take you a bit to understand the famous VSAM messages >th= >at gave you a bunch of possibilities at an answer if you could discern >if i= >t was a FC or other type of RC or whatever. If you read it carefully >enough= > it did make sense (most of the time). That was about the time that >(sorry = >I do not remember the name of the IBM product) but IBM shipped you a >search= >able database every month or so and you could play with search args to >find= > something you couldn't make heads or tales out of. Of course now its >IBMLI= >NK (when it is up) and it functions the same and with reasonably more up >to= > date issues than the once a month tape shipment. >The pubs people might have lost their way as it seems in the late 80's >(esp= >ecially with USS) components (I DO NOT MEAN UNFORMATTED SYSTEM SERVICES >so = >if anyone wants to get anal about the meaning I do not care. >Ed=A0=A0=0A=0A=0A ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
