On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:22:47 -0800, Charles Mills wrote: >I think IBM has a problem with making something free that used to be charged. >Not sure exactly what the problem is; perhaps a fear that those who paid years >ago will want their money back. It is solvable by creating a new free offering >that is a lot like, but not exactly the same as, the former paid offering, but >that is an additional internal hurdle to be overcome. > AOPBATCH vs. BPXBATCH?
IT may be that IBM fears that providing a new facility with a useful feature will provoke a demand that feature be retrofitted into the older facility. (E.g. "Why can't PDS members automatically be timestamped like PDSE?) >-----Original Message----- >From: R.S. >Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:14 AM > >> Grrr... >> FAMS keeps timestamps for PDSE members with microsecond precision. >> The interface spec is available for a price, perhaps NDA. >> >> It boggles the mind that a vendor would keep customers' file timestamps >> secret. > >It's both: funny and annoying. PDSE is almost 40 years old, AFAIK and >many features of it is still secret, not in use, etc. Note, it's not >discussion about source code, it is about really basic features. >I can't imagine any reason to keep it secret. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
