On 4/10/2013 8:05 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
As all should understand, very little of this would be considered supported in any way shape or form and if anything in this realm caused a problem (or could conceivably have caused a problem), IBM service might take a hard line about helping.
As a couple of other comments state, user's relations with IBM have been much of a love-hate relationship.
1) On an early OS/360 system, our resident S.E. (remember those) spent some agonizing time tracking a system crash, and finally found some non-reentrant code in DUO. She was very gracious about it.
2) When IBM split out the communications task, they left an extraneous FREEMAIN that got exercised only when a MOUNT command was issued with a seven character or longer serial (without the comm task, the system couldn't even be shut down). It took just over a year to get the official fix, even though I included a one-byte ZAP with the original problem report.
3) A new version of the CoBOL compiler produced an 0C4 in execution of a large program (something about needing more than four base registers?). IBM had a fix in less than a week.
We had resource accounting and billing before SMF, tape library code before UCC-1 and TLMS, security before RACF, and were not the only installation that found IBM's code to be insufficient for our needs. Many of the features in the current system are due to complaints, suggestions, and contributions from users and user groups, and IBM service needs to understand that zOS, despite the OCO policy, will never assume appliance status.
Gerhard Postpischil Bradford, Vermont ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
