Even if the vendor can supply a clear and detailed explanation, I must agree with Mike about the need for an agreement or a schedule for upgrading the package.
Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Jones > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Philosophical question... > > I'd have to agree with the others on this issue.....unless > the vendor can provide you with a clear and detail > explanation for why this must be so, then I'd say the vendor > is incorrect and you are correct. > > DJ > > Mike Walter wrote: > > Is this the vendor's long-term answer, requiring old code > to support > > their app? > > > > If the app is critical to that site, and the situation is > short term, > > then perhaps *maybe* it's OK. But I would want a clear, concise > > written agreement that the vendor is diligently working on > an upgrade > > to eliminate this obvious cludge -- and a time-dependent > penalty clause. > > > > Perhaps the vendor (whichever) just trying to allocate > their ever- and > > over-hyped "limited development dollars" by not throwing > people at the > > development problem? More people on a project doesn't > always result > > in better code, shipped sooner (can you spell "VM/XA SF", > or even just > > "VM/XA"?). > > > > Mike Walter > > Hewitt Associates > > Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily > > represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. > > > > > > > > "David Boyes" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <[email protected]> > > 02/03/2009 09:53 AM > > Please respond to > > "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > To > > [email protected] > > cc > > > > Subject > > Philosophical question... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > Upgrading a system to current level. Have a vendor product that > > insists on the installation of a backlevel component > application that > > causes the configuration and service management system to report > > errors in the configuration. Vendor insists that the backlevel > > component is the only way, but the errors cause problems > with future > > upgrades and overall configuration management by reporting false > > positives when checked for whether the system is up to date > and has all service applied. > > > > Question: > > > > I believe the maker of the vendor product is in error here. > Am I wrong? > > > > -- db > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any > accompanying documents may contain information that is > confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you > are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this > message has been addressed to you in error, please > immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete > this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, > distribution or other use of the contents of this message by > anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly > prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address > may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and > regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies > and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and > cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be > intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. > You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you > communicate with us by e-mail. > > -- > DJ > > V/Soft > z/VM and mainframe Linux expertise, training, > consulting, and software development > www.vsoft-software.com >
