AW: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Hello Harry,thank you very much for you response, and especially for picking this up. I know the subject I chose was a bit harshly formulated, but I did this on purpose. I was hoping that it would get things going, and it did. I'm grateful. Best regardsPeter -- Peter Hunkeler

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Dear Peter I apologize for not responding sooner to your plea for help, but I do want to publicly respond on behalf of SHARE. SHARE is a community of people representing users of enterprise technology. As such, we regularly participate in discussions with various vendors in the Z ecosystem

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 17:18:08 +, Seymour J Metz wrote: >there are legitimate reasons to search for old manuals. Indeed. Questions arise on here often enough about when something was introduced or changed. I occasionally refer to MVS V4 or V5 documentation, and even look for early MVS and

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Hi Sue, It is working again now, and I'm noticing an updated look and feel with the 2.2 Elements and Features page. In my previous attempts, I opened new z.OS 2.2 Elements and Features tabs. This time however, I shutdown all tabs and restarted the browser. Regardless, it's working - Thank

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Hi Mike, I'm unable to replicate your problem. Please contact me directly and we can try to get to the bottom of it. Thanks! -Sue Shumway On 06/21/18 3:47 PM, Mike Hochee wrote: Yes, extremely well stated, and timely too!. Ironically, it looks like the z/OS 2.2 Elements and Features

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Yes, extremely well stated, and timely too!. Ironically, it looks like the z/OS 2.2 Elements and Features pdf link https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosv2r2-pdf-download?OpenDocument now points at numerous z/OS 2.1 manuals. I don't know how extensive the

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Good article, of course, Cheryl. The one thing it didn't mention is that maintenance of these sites is being moved overseas. That's not inherently bad, except that it inevitably leads to a loss of tribal knowledge, which may be how these huge omissions occurred. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:06 PM,

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

I was shocked when this article showed up on my front page on Reddit. Perfectly stated! -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Watson Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 10:42 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re:

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

She generally is nice. BTW, for those who don't know who she is, I strongly recommend that you take a look at her newsletters. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Allan Staller

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Indeed! and articulated the z communities outage in a most civil manner thank you Cheryl Carmen Vitullo - Original Message - From: "Charles Mills" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:28:45 AM Subject: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Except she was polite about it! -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

As would be expected, Cheryl absolutely nailed it! Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Watson Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:42 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Here's our take on this issue - http://watsonwalker.com/what-is-happening-with-ibms-websites/ All my best, Cheryl === Cheryl Watson Watson & Walker, Inc. www.watsonwalker.com ===

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 15/06/2018 8:29 PM, Jerry Callen wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:27:47 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or command or document changes to older versions, and they only update the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

IMHO, IBM should be very cautious about using noindex and robots.txt; there are legitimate reasons to search for old manuals. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Kirk Wolf Sent:

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Isn't there provision for anchors in the current version of PDF? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of Jerry Callen Sent: Friday, June 15, 2018 8:29 AM To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:27:47 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or >command or document changes to older versions, and they only update >the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer manual then >check the document changes so you

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:33:03 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote: >On 6/14/2018 9:27 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: >> Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or >> command or document changes to older versions, and they only update >> the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

This may have been said before, but if IBM wanted to remove stuff, the appropriate way is to: 1) use robots.txt or equivalent to exclude the to-be-deleted documents from search indexes 2) wait some period of time for crawlers to re-index 3) Remove the pages Google in particular I believe has

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 9:27 AM, Mike Schwab wrote: Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or command or document changes to older versions, and they only update the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer manual then check the document changes so you aren't referencing

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

It works for me but for me and I think others that is not the point, a google, bing or even an IBM site search brings up 2.1 links to pages that no longer exist and I didn't search for 2.1 content, no other hits come back for 2.2 or 2.3, all searches link you to 2.1 KC that not there. I'll

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Hi Tom and Ed, I agree! This is one of the biggest mistakes IBM has ever made. I'm very outraged. Someone else on the MXG list was looking for the LPAR Design tool and I ended up posting this: -Original Message- From: MXG Software LIST [mailto:mx...@peach.ease.lsoft.com] On Behalf

AW: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

>Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or command or document changes to older versions, and they only update the newest manual. Very good point! I strongly prefer to read PDFs over KC web pages when I need to read more than a few paragraphs. However, with the change to

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 12:01 PM, John Eells wrote: Does this link not work for everyone? https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosv2r1-pdf-download?OpenDocument I fully recognize that this is not the full complement of what was available before, but my (only) point is that

AW: Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

>Does this link not work for everyone? > >https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosv2r1-pdf-download?OpenDocument I can't tell if it is working for everyone, but I can confirm that is for me. -- Peter Hunkeler

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

From: “https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosInternetLibrary” Search using IBM Knowledge Center | V2R3 |

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Even if you have a z/OS 2.1 manual, some PTFs do add features or command or document changes to older versions, and they only update the newest manual. Sometimes it is best to get the newer manual then check the document changes so you aren't referencing a feature only in the newest release. On

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

That's not what most of us are complaining about. It's when doing a Google search, and Google returns hits that are referencing the 2.1 manuals, which are not there. And for whatever reason, Google is only returning hits on 2.1. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Does this link not work for everyone? https://www-304.ibm.com/servers/resourcelink/svc00100.nsf/pages/zosv2r1-pdf-download?OpenDocument I fully recognize that this is not the full complement of what was available before, but my (only) point is that the 2.1 documentation seems to be available.

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 6:05 AM, Tom Conley wrote: > > ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!!  DO A > GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! > > Peter's anger is justified.  IBM has screwed up royally here, and as > far as I can tell, they're not lifting a finger to fix the

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:54 AM Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 6/14/2018 6:05 AM, Tom Conley wrote: > > > > ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!! DO A > > GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! > > > > Peter's anger is justified. IBM has screwed up royally here, and as > >

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 8:53 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!!  DO A GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! Stop whining and buy a used Power8 and install IBM i 7.3, "What z/OS should have been and never was" :) -- Jack J. Woehr # Science is

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 6:05 AM, Tom Conley wrote: ALL z/OS V2R1 CONTENT WAS REMOVED FROM THE INTERNET BY IBM!!  DO A GOOGLE SEARCH, AND NONE OF THE LINKS WORK!! Peter's anger is justified.  IBM has screwed up royally here, and as far as I can tell, they're not lifting a finger to fix the situation.

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Ok, let’s try this simple search – “VSAM DATA SET TYPES” Results: About this result Selection of VSAM Data Set Types -

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

I’m afraid I agree, every link that had z/OS 2.1 ended up with “No Longer Available”. The searches all ended in frustration. The real question is “has IBM removed all of its z/OS documentation?” Will this be repaired or are we all going to have to go back to paper? PHIL CARLYLE Information

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

I don't think it's actually the case that it was all removed, even though I will agree that it is more difficult to find. I thought someone posted this link a few days ago, but it has been working fine for me:

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

hum my reply to this post via email is not gettingposted ? trying again.. Totally agree ! very frustrating, what's more frustrating is I spent a good amount of time setting up a KC server on my local system and still the search engine is a JOKE. I have 2.2 KC and CICS (that's all I can

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

On 6/14/2018 8:16 AM, Ralph Robison wrote: Peter, Others have made useful recommendations for the general situation. For the specific disappearing doc that you encountered, I wonder whether it may have been an error rather than intentionally removed. In either case, it may be useful to cite

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Peter, Others have made useful recommendations for the general situation. For the specific disappearing doc that you encountered, I wonder whether it may have been an error rather than intentionally removed. In either case, it may be useful to cite the specific doc that has become

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

IMHO it's reasonable for IBM to steer customers to the Internet. Steering them to the WWW, especially to sites that don't have a stable URL, is another matter; I'd rather see FTP and SFTP sites for, e.g., downloading documentation, with stable host names. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

Hi Peter, I agree that the product vendor has the primary responsibility of providing clear, accurate, and readily available doc, but I still like to have matching doc at the level I install and with a copy of my install notes, along with anything else that might come in handy if I need to

Re: Would SHARE kindly kick IBM in the ass for what the've done with their web content?

There's nobody left at IBM who can fix this. Critical internal websites go down for days. Another round of purges has started in POK. It's just a matter of time now, and Ginny & co. are clueless. They just keep cutting, looking for the elephant. On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:25 AM, Peter Hunkeler