On Friday, 06/02/2006 at 07:08 AST, Jim Bohnsack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I gave up on trusting IBM "black boxes" for S/W maintenance when I found > instructions in a program directory, back in the mid-80's, that included, > after linking the MAINT or CMS 19E disk in write mode, the next line that > said "FORMAT 19E G". Even tho I was working for IBM at the time, I never > quite was willing to place blind trust in S/W installs after that. Note > that this was not, fortunately, contained within some long installation > exec, but was printed in the product directory. If I remember correctly, > it was not an Endicott product, so Chuckie would not have done it.
Of course, a PD that has FORMAT 19E G in it would be in error. Nothing has changed since the Olden Days: Application developers have a distorted view of their applications' importance and of the system as a whole. The Linux Standards Base is helping to proactively allieviate some of that problem in Linux, but that ship has sailed in VM. We just handle poor installation instructions via APARs. But without you Old Timers :-) actually using the "new" tools we provide (how long has PUT2PROD been around?), and calling in the problems and bad ideas, improvements are slowed to a snail's pace. PUT2PROD is intended to put service into production. If it isn't doing that correctly, causing more harm than good, let us know. (Call it in.) But please don't just turn away from it and ignore it. If OTs won't use it, what hope do newbies have? Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
