I don't agree about SSX/VSE. I worked on that system at a small ISV in the 80's and It was a pretty nifty system for its time. Ran on low-power 4331' s with 3310 FBA DASD, all system maintenance was via ICCF (the VSE equivalent of ISPF) menus and canned jobs, and it worked like a charm for us. We were able to set up our own software product maintenance and configuration as ICCF menus and the few SSX/VSE clients we had loved it. It was actually fun to work on.
The hardest part was getting used to FBA file allocation parameters (blocks, not tracks!). ISTR that the sales folk liked using the SSX/VSE system for demos while we had it in house because it made everything look easy. Sometimes good ideas get abandoned too soon. Peter -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Pace Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 3:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Eliminating the systems programmer was Re: IBM cuts contractor bil ling by 15 percent (our else) Oh the great failed examples of VM/IS 4 & 5, took IBM 2 releases to figure this was a disaster. Also SSX/VSE. All thought they could have an administrator install and maintain the system. I can't recall the number of times I was on the CritSit Desk for VM/IS 4. <Snipped> -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
