Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread Timothy Sipples
IBM first introduced PDSEs about 27 years ago. IBM first introduced Java on OS/390 about 21 years ago. That's a long, long time ago. It's impossible to defend stubborn opposition to these and to other highly mature technologies. Business (and the business of government) will get done, with or

AW: Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>I know companies which are not ready for computers at all. PDSE is so new... ;-) I know of companies (or should I say managers) who believe they are beyond the need for computers since there is the Internet and Google 8-) -- Peter Hunkeler

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
Some time back SHARE folks got wind that IBM was scoring APARs as defects against owning organizations and dinging them accordingly. As customers we took great umbrage at that judgement, arguing with IBM management that APAR fixes--PTFs--serve to improve the product. Especially PTFs installed

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:22:38 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote: > >The bigger problem is when an organization views customer problem >reports as something to be minimized (as opposed to actual problems). > That's what I call "the Microsoft QA metric": the MTB calls to support. I discovered this years ago

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Bill Johnson
They don't build them using 6 sigma. It would put most dealers out of business. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, September 7, 2017, 9:03 PM, Gibney, Dave wrote: Auto "Makers" try to avoid shipping defective cars. Recalls can be expensive. > -Original

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Edward Gould
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Gibney, Dave wrote: > > Auto "Makers" try to avoid shipping defective cars. Recalls can be expensive. I wonder if IBM would accept a box of tapes with Z/os in it? What would be funnier is to not attach postage and make IBM pay for it. Ed

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Edward Gould
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 3:08 PM, Jim Mulder wrote: > > With regard to only the last sentence in Gord's comments, > those of us in z/OS development who put the bugs into the software > don't have anything to do with the IBM offerings for reporting bugs and > obtaining fixes for

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Gibney, Dave
Auto "Makers" try to avoid shipping defective cars. Recalls can be expensive. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 5:58 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject:

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Bill Johnson
Auto dealers make tons of money fixing defective cars. All software companies charge for bug fixes. Some just hide it in the initial cost of the software. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, September 7, 2017, 7:04 PM, Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Andrew Rowley
On 8/09/2017 9:55 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote: Development management, often impelled by schedules imposed by Marketing, is apt to view defect response as competing for development resource and, in defense, nurture those gatekeepers. Other forms of QA also impact on development schedules. But I

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 09:16:06 +1000, Andrew Rowley wrote: >> >As a vendor, I greatly appreciate customers who take the time to report >bugs. It helps improve the software and helps me do my job. I suspect >that most of the developers at IBM feel the same way. > >However, there are parts of IBM that

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Steve Thompson
Jim: Now come on, fess up. When put that code there that way, it was for an undocumented feature. Some undocumented features work better than others, but still... Regards, Steve Thompson On 09/07/2017 04:08 PM, Jim Mulder wrote: With regard to only the last sentence in Gord's

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Andrew Rowley
On 8/09/2017 5:02 AM, Gord Tomlin wrote: Charging for the privilege of reporting bugs, and obtaining fixes for the bugs, puts the incentives for the charging vendor in the wrong place. It reduces the net cost to the vendor of handling defects, and transfers part of the financial impact of

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 18:16:34 -0400, Tom Conley wrote: >On 9/7/2017 4:07 PM, Jim Mulder wrote: >> With regard to only the last sentence in Gord's comments, >> those of us in z/OS development who put the bugs into the software >> don't have anything to do with the IBM offerings for reporting bugs

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Lizette Koehler
I think that this is awesome. I get to go Easter egg hunts (Bug hunts) for fun and giggles. Thank you IBM very much Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Tom Conley > Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 3:17

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Tom Conley
On 9/7/2017 4:07 PM, Jim Mulder wrote: With regard to only the last sentence in Gord's comments, those of us in z/OS development who put the bugs into the software don't have anything to do with the IBM offerings for reporting bugs and obtaining fixes for the bugs. So that does not play any

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Gord Tomlin
On 2017-09-07 16:08, Jim Mulder wrote: With regard to only the last sentence in Gord's comments, those of us in z/OS development who put the bugs into the software don't have anything to do with the IBM offerings for reporting bugs and obtaining fixes for the bugs. So that does not play any

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Jesse 1 Robinson
I for one am grateful the bugs IBM inserts. If not for them, I would not have a job. ;-)) . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original

Re: SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Gord Tomlin
On 2017-09-07 12:07, Ed Jaffe wrote: We're a small shop. We *really* don't want to be paying thousands every month just for the "privilege" of being able to report bugs with, and get fixes for, our non-Linux mainframe software. (IMHO such support ought to be included free as part of MLC and S

Re: FTP JCL EXAMPLE - FTP PDS

2017-09-07 Thread John McKown
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Cieri, Anthony wrote: > > If you are transferring a PDS from one MVS LPAR to another and > creating the target PDS, couldn't you use: > > mvsput 'FTP.V8050.MVS.BUILDJCL' 'DRP.V8050.MVS.BUILDJCL.NEW' > (REAllocate ​Oh, that is

Re: FTP JCL EXAMPLE - FTP PDS

2017-09-07 Thread Cieri, Anthony
If you are transferring a PDS from one MVS LPAR to another and creating the target PDS, couldn't you use: mvsput 'FTP.V8050.MVS.BUILDJCL' 'DRP.V8050.MVS.BUILDJCL.NEW' (REAllocate -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: FTP JCL EXAMPLE - FTP PDS

2017-09-07 Thread John McKown
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:47 AM, willie bunter < 001409bd2345-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > John, > > I am stuck again. Would you have the parm when FTPing a PDS/PDSE? > > I tried the following: > > QUOTE SITE PRI=50 SEC=20 CYL > MPUT 'FTP.V8050.MVS.BUILDJCL(*)' + >

Re: FTP JCL EXAMPLE - FTP PDS

2017-09-07 Thread willie bunter
John, I am stuck again. Would you have the parm when FTPing a PDS/PDSE? I tried the following: QUOTE SITE PRI=50 SEC=20 CYL MPUT 'FTP.V8050.MVS.BUILDJCL(*)' + 'DRP.V8050.MVS.BUILDJCL.NEW' QUIT

SoftwareXcel Discontinued

2017-09-07 Thread Ed Jaffe
On Aug 8, 2017 IBM announced they are withdrawing the following offerings: SoftwareXcel Basic Edition (6942-77G) SoftwareXcel Enterprise Edition (6942-77E) Alert for zSeries (6942-16D) Resolve for zSeries (6942-23D) replacing them with: z Systems Premier Software Care (6950-07W) z Systems

Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread Pommier, Rex
Re: Java is a word not an acronym... Just Another Vague Acronym? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of David Crayford Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 5:24 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Lack of Support

Re: IEAARR

2017-09-07 Thread Peter Relson
I think these two separated points from the same post are to some extent in conflict. If the only documentation of an interface is the macro that invokes it ... I do not see a conflict.. I did not say that the macro is the documentation. I said that the book is the documentation. The fact

Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread Edward Gould
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Frank Swarbrick > wrote: > > I understand the PDSE fear, though we've not run in to any issues. I don't > understand what programmers don't like about COBOL V5/V6. Do you have any > concrete examples? Just wondering. I like the

Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread Edward Gould
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 5:24 AM, David Crayford wrote: > > On 7/09/2017 9:15 AM, Edward Gould wrote: >>> I think that we've finally got past that hang-up. PDSE is ready for prime >>> time. >> The PDSe outage brought the company to its knees. They do NOT want to see >> the

Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread David Crayford
On 7/09/2017 7:10 PM, R.S. wrote: W dniu 2017-09-07 o 12:24, David Crayford pisze: On 7/09/2017 9:15 AM, Edward Gould wrote: I think that we've finally got past that hang-up. PDSE is ready for prime time. The PDSe outage brought the company to its knees. They do NOT want to see the same thing

Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread R.S.
W dniu 2017-09-07 o 12:24, David Crayford pisze: On 7/09/2017 9:15 AM, Edward Gould wrote: I think that we've finally got past that hang-up. PDSE is ready for prime time. The PDSe outage brought the company to its knees. They do NOT want to see the same thing happening again. All the higher up

Re: Lack of Support for Doc for COBOL

2017-09-07 Thread David Crayford
On 7/09/2017 9:15 AM, Edward Gould wrote: I think that we've finally got past that hang-up. PDSE is ready for prime time. The PDSe outage brought the company to its knees. They do NOT want to see the same thing happening again. All the higher up operating officers got their hands slapped and

Re: IEAARR

2017-09-07 Thread Rob Scott
I would change that third sentence to : "You can demand that your macro *is* the interface, but that implies you require your clients to re-assemble their code whenever they want to utilize any of the *real* interface changes" Any interface worth its salt would support previously assembled