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
>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
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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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:
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>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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(*)' +
>
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
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: 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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo