Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Scott Ford]

I don't get letting well educated and highly experience professionals go. 
Who do companies think will handle these systems ? Outsourcing , not 

Scott ford
www.identityforge.com

Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll 
understand. - Chinese Proverb


On Oct 18, 2012, at 11:37 AM, zMan  wrote:

> "RA"? I suspect "resource allocation" or thereabouts, but??
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Dana Mitchell  wrote:
> 
>> My current employer only has one shared ID for IBM electronic support,
>> used by all platforms.  The last few years, it's just become too painful
>> to use the online facility, so I'm back to  using the 800 number
>> exclusively.  Welcome to the 1980's!  Once a pmr has been opened, emails
>> can be used for exchange of info with L2 or L3 support.
>> 
>> I see this as just another indicator of the continuing slide of IBM in the
>> last few years.  Deep cost cutting and USA staff that has been RA'ed to the
>> max, leaving sketchy support areas overseas with little experience to
>> support customers both external and internal.   A large share of profits
>> goes for stock buy-backs,  propping up EPS and thus stock price.  It is a
>> cycle that cannot continue indefinitely, very similar to a ponzi scheme.
>> Unfortunately the z customers that are left are ones that will not, or
>> cannot migrate easily to other platforms, so they make a great cash cow to
>> milk for all their worth.
> -- 
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Dana Mitchell]

Yes, sorry to the non-ex-IBMers.  RA is resource action.  Their term for the 
quarterly layoffs.  

Dana

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[zMan]

Ah. Sure. "It seems so obvious now..."

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Gross, Randall [Primerica] <
randy.gr...@primerica.com> wrote:

> IIRC, it was "resource action", but it was seven years ago when it
> happened to me.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of zMan
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:38 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a  now involved?...
>
> "RA"? I suspect "resource allocation" or thereabouts, but??
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Dana Mitchell 
> wrote:
>
> > My current employer only has one shared ID for IBM electronic support,
>
> > used by all platforms.  The last few years, it's just become too
> > painful to use the online facility, so I'm back to  using the 800
> > number exclusively.  Welcome to the 1980's!  Once a pmr has been
> > opened, emails can be used for exchange of info with L2 or L3 support.
> >
> > I see this as just another indicator of the continuing slide of IBM in
>
> > the last few years.  Deep cost cutting and USA staff that has been
> > RA'ed to the max, leaving sketchy support areas overseas with little
> experience to
> > support customers both external and internal.   A large share of
> profits
> > goes for stock buy-backs,  propping up EPS and thus stock price.  It
> > is a cycle that cannot continue indefinitely, very similar to a ponzi
> scheme.
> >  Unfortunately the z customers that are left are ones that will not,
> > or cannot migrate easily to other platforms, so they make a great cash
>
> > cow to milk for all their worth.
> >
> --
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Gross, Randall [Primerica]]

IIRC, it was "resource action", but it was seven years ago when it
happened to me.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of zMan
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a  now involved?...

"RA"? I suspect "resource allocation" or thereabouts, but??

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Dana Mitchell 
wrote:

> My current employer only has one shared ID for IBM electronic support,

> used by all platforms.  The last few years, it's just become too 
> painful to use the online facility, so I'm back to  using the 800 
> number exclusively.  Welcome to the 1980's!  Once a pmr has been 
> opened, emails can be used for exchange of info with L2 or L3 support.
>
> I see this as just another indicator of the continuing slide of IBM in

> the last few years.  Deep cost cutting and USA staff that has been 
> RA'ed to the max, leaving sketchy support areas overseas with little
experience to
> support customers both external and internal.   A large share of
profits
> goes for stock buy-backs,  propping up EPS and thus stock price.  It 
> is a cycle that cannot continue indefinitely, very similar to a ponzi
scheme.
>  Unfortunately the z customers that are left are ones that will not, 
> or cannot migrate easily to other platforms, so they make a great cash

> cow to milk for all their worth.
>
--
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Chicklon, Thomas]

How about Resource Action. Laid off. Fired. Downsized. Rightsized. All mean 
pretty much the same thing.

Tom Chicklon

---

"RA"? I suspect "resource allocation" or thereabouts, but??


> Deep cost cutting and USA staff that has been 
> RA'ed to the max, leaving sketchy support areas overseas with little 
> experience to
> support customers both external and internal.   

This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be 
privileged.   It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you 
receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any 
manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please 
reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was 
misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your 
assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[zMan]

"RA"? I suspect "resource allocation" or thereabouts, but??

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Dana Mitchell  wrote:

> My current employer only has one shared ID for IBM electronic support,
>  used by all platforms.  The last few years, it's just become too painful
> to use the online facility, so I'm back to  using the 800 number
> exclusively.  Welcome to the 1980's!  Once a pmr has been opened, emails
> can be used for exchange of info with L2 or L3 support.
>
> I see this as just another indicator of the continuing slide of IBM in the
> last few years.  Deep cost cutting and USA staff that has been RA'ed to the
> max, leaving sketchy support areas overseas with little experience to
> support customers both external and internal.   A large share of profits
> goes for stock buy-backs,  propping up EPS and thus stock price.  It is a
> cycle that cannot continue indefinitely, very similar to a ponzi scheme.
>  Unfortunately the z customers that are left are ones that will not, or
> cannot migrate easily to other platforms, so they make a great cash cow to
> milk for all their worth.
>
-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Dana Mitchell]

My current employer only has one shared ID for IBM electronic support,  used by 
all platforms.  The last few years, it's just become too painful to use the 
online facility, so I'm back to  using the 800 number exclusively.  Welcome to 
the 1980's!  Once a pmr has been opened, emails can be used for exchange of 
info with L2 or L3 support.  

I see this as just another indicator of the continuing slide of IBM in the last 
few years.  Deep cost cutting and USA staff that has been RA'ed to the max, 
leaving sketchy support areas overseas with little experience to support 
customers both external and internal.   A large share of profits goes for stock 
buy-backs,  propping up EPS and thus stock price.  It is a cycle that cannot 
continue indefinitely, very similar to a ponzi scheme.  Unfortunately the z 
customers that are left are ones that will not, or cannot migrate easily to 
other platforms, so they make a great cash cow to milk for all their worth.

Dana

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:34:13 -0700, Charles Mills  wrote:

>A vendor has to charge for its services and they are entitled to charge as
>they wish but there is no question that it is just plain goofy to give 800
>number support at no additional charge, but to charge extra to use the Web.
>Totally backwards.
>
>Charles

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Charles Mills]

A vendor has to charge for its services and they are entitled to charge as
they wish but there is no question that it is just plain goofy to give 800
number support at no additional charge, but to charge extra to use the Web.
Totally backwards.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Brian France
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a  now involved?...

I deal with other vendors like CA for ACF2 and MIM, and Syncsort. 
NEITHER charges me for electronic support. It comes with the product as it
should. Support has been stellar whether it be an actual bug in the code or
a fubar on my part. The people in tech support I've worked with in IBM the
same can be said. The same can not be said for IBM and what they want to and
now are going to charge for versus CA or Syncsort.  I'm
10 years out on retirement and sure do hope to see this new IBM thinking go
by the way side or I'm afraid there wont be an IBM left. I never thought I'd
see the day that my favorite platform is being killed from within.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Brian France]

I deal with other vendors like CA for ACF2 and MIM, and Syncsort. 
NEITHER charges me for electronic support. It comes with the product as 
it should. Support has been stellar whether it be an actual bug in the 
code or a fubar on my part. The people in tech support I've worked with 
in IBM the same can be said. The same can not be said for IBM and what 
they want to and now are going to charge for versus CA or Syncsort.  I'm 
10 years out on retirement and sure do hope to see this new IBM thinking 
go by the way side or I'm afraid there wont be an IBM left. I never 
thought I'd see the day that my favorite platform is being killed from 
within.



On 10/16/2012 6:00 PM, Scott Ford wrote:

I don't disagree with either of you. Customer service is lacking with a lot of 
vendors. But on the flip side I will tell you from experience a lot of 
customers are lacking talent in the systems arena. This isn't a big surprise a 
lot of guys my age are retiring or retired. We go above and beyond usually in 
service on our products because of our size.

Scott ford
www.identityforge.com

Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll 
understand. - Chinese Proverb


On Oct 16, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Brian France  wrote:


Howdy Barb,
 See imbedded below...

On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, ibmmain wrote:

Brian,


Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this
subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never
free and that promoting web sites costs money.

I think what you're seeing here is that someone at IBM screwed up royally. It 
all comes out because IBM now 'consolidates' their many tools on different 
platforms into one (named SR), and SR is built on assumptions that IBM came up 
with in their ivory tower. SR exposes that most of the customer data bases are 
equally screwed up. New customer numbers are assigned sometimes on a 
product-by-product basis, and it is sufficient for one manager at your site 
signing off on something like this six years ago for you now to have a binding 
contract that does not include opening problems electronically.

 Yes, I do believe you're totally correct on this. I kinda had been 
thinking that especially since we had the meeting Friday and I kept hearing the 
same over and over, IBMLINK is what I know, not the other URL's. And it 
continues to highly urinate me that they don't have the guts, nads, choose your 
optimum word here, to admit it OR even more importantly, notify upfront. 
Somewhere in there I have to think breach of contract when you take away access 
without notification...


I have seen this when IBM forced session manager on us (instead of NetView 
Access) by the simple expedient of silently terminating the NVAS licence in our 
contract and substituting session manager instead. We had never agreed to that, 
but my boss had signed off on it when the contract was up for renewal and there 
we were. More recently, when Sterling was bought by IBM, IBM was incapable of 
putting the NDM licence under the same contract we have always had opened PMRs 
under. IBM silently opened a new customer number just for NDM and made a 
colleague of mine admin for it. Need I mention that none of us could access 
that customer number?

I feel your pain. This is certainly NO customer service at all. In the long 
run, it is one more nail in z/OSs coffin

   Yes the pounding of nails at IBM is just astounding. A bigot of them 
I've been, but no more...

.

Barbara Nitz

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--

--

Brian W. France
Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
Pennsylvania State University
Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
814-863-4739
b...@psu.edu 

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Carl Sagan

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--

--

Brian W. France
Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
Pennsylvania State University
Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
814-863-4739
b...@psu.edu 

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Carl Sagan

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the messag

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Scott Ford]

I don't disagree with either of you. Customer service is lacking with a lot of 
vendors. But on the flip side I will tell you from experience a lot of 
customers are lacking talent in the systems arena. This isn't a big surprise a 
lot of guys my age are retiring or retired. We go above and beyond usually in 
service on our products because of our size.

Scott ford
www.identityforge.com

Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll 
understand. - Chinese Proverb


On Oct 16, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Brian France  wrote:

> Howdy Barb,
> See imbedded below...
> 
> On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, ibmmain wrote:
>> Brian,
>> 
>>> Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this
>>> subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never
>>> free and that promoting web sites costs money.
>> I think what you're seeing here is that someone at IBM screwed up royally. 
>> It all comes out because IBM now 'consolidates' their many tools on 
>> different platforms into one (named SR), and SR is built on assumptions that 
>> IBM came up with in their ivory tower. SR exposes that most of the customer 
>> data bases are equally screwed up. New customer numbers are assigned 
>> sometimes on a product-by-product basis, and it is sufficient for one 
>> manager at your site signing off on something like this six years ago for 
>> you now to have a binding contract that does not include opening problems 
>> electronically.
> Yes, I do believe you're totally correct on this. I kinda had 
> been thinking that especially since we had the meeting Friday and I kept 
> hearing the same over and over, IBMLINK is what I know, not the other URL's. 
> And it continues to highly urinate me that they don't have the guts, nads, 
> choose your optimum word here, to admit it OR even more importantly, notify 
> upfront. Somewhere in there I have to think breach of contract when you take 
> away access without notification...
> 
>> 
>> I have seen this when IBM forced session manager on us (instead of NetView 
>> Access) by the simple expedient of silently terminating the NVAS licence in 
>> our contract and substituting session manager instead. We had never agreed 
>> to that, but my boss had signed off on it when the contract was up for 
>> renewal and there we were. More recently, when Sterling was bought by IBM, 
>> IBM was incapable of putting the NDM licence under the same contract we have 
>> always had opened PMRs under. IBM silently opened a new customer number just 
>> for NDM and made a colleague of mine admin for it. Need I mention that none 
>> of us could access that customer number?
>> 
>> I feel your pain. This is certainly NO customer service at all. In the long 
>> run, it is one more nail in z/OSs coffin
>   Yes the pounding of nails at IBM is just astounding. A bigot of them 
> I've been, but no more...
>> .
>> 
>> Barbara Nitz
>> 
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> 
> -- 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Brian W. France
> Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
> Pennsylvania State University
> Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
> Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
> 814-863-4739
> b...@psu.edu 
> 
> "To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
> 
> Carl Sagan
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Clark Morris]

On 16 Oct 2012 10:26:59 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Bri9an France
wrote:

You who are still in the field (I'm retired but am open to contracts)
are between the rock and the hard place.  I doubt the other operating
systems vendors are so stupid but I know that I wouldn't want to give
management migration ideas.  Unfortunately the people who have the
clout in an organization to get IBM to back down and smarten up are in
all too many cases the ones who are looking for more reasons to bite
the bullet and migrate.  Possibly one line of attack is seriously
reviewing the other environments for applicability to your
organization (Windows, Linux, Solaris, Unix of choice, etc.) and
seeing if you would like using them.  If there is an alternative you
can promote and live with then it is worth starting to push back
against these IBM policies.  In the meanwhile, as a shareholder I am
embarrassed by IBM's chutzpah in charging large amounts for an
unreliable product (SR and related, not zOS).

Clark Morris
 
>Howdy Barb,
>  See imbedded below...
>
>On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, ibmmain wrote:
>> Brian,
>>
>>> Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this
>>> subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never
>>> free and that promoting web sites costs money.
>> I think what you're seeing here is that someone at IBM screwed up royally. 
>> It all comes out because IBM now 'consolidates' their many tools on 
>> different platforms into one (named SR), and SR is built on assumptions that 
>> IBM came up with in their ivory tower. SR exposes that most of the customer 
>> data bases are equally screwed up. New customer numbers are assigned 
>> sometimes on a product-by-product basis, and it is sufficient for one 
>> manager at your site signing off on something like this six years ago for 
>> you now to have a binding contract that does not include opening problems 
>> electronically.
>  Yes, I do believe you're totally correct on this. I kinda 
>had been thinking that especially since we had the meeting Friday and I 
>kept hearing the same over and over, IBMLINK is what I know, not the 
>other URL's. And it continues to highly urinate me that they don't have 
>the guts, nads, choose your optimum word here, to admit it OR even more 
>importantly, notify upfront. Somewhere in there I have to think breach 
>of contract when you take away access without notification...
>
>>
>> I have seen this when IBM forced session manager on us (instead of NetView 
>> Access) by the simple expedient of silently terminating the NVAS licence in 
>> our contract and substituting session manager instead. We had never agreed 
>> to that, but my boss had signed off on it when the contract was up for 
>> renewal and there we were. More recently, when Sterling was bought by IBM, 
>> IBM was incapable of putting the NDM licence under the same contract we have 
>> always had opened PMRs under. IBM silently opened a new customer number just 
>> for NDM and made a colleague of mine admin for it. Need I mention that none 
>> of us could access that customer number?
>>
>> I feel your pain. This is certainly NO customer service at all. In the long 
>> run, it is one more nail in z/OSs coffin
>Yes the pounding of nails at IBM is just astounding. A bigot of 
>them I've been, but no more...
>> .
>>
>> Barbara Nitz
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>-- 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Brian France]

Howdy Barb,
 See imbedded below...

On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, ibmmain wrote:

Brian,


Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this
subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never
free and that promoting web sites costs money.

I think what you're seeing here is that someone at IBM screwed up royally. It 
all comes out because IBM now 'consolidates' their many tools on different 
platforms into one (named SR), and SR is built on assumptions that IBM came up 
with in their ivory tower. SR exposes that most of the customer data bases are 
equally screwed up. New customer numbers are assigned sometimes on a 
product-by-product basis, and it is sufficient for one manager at your site 
signing off on something like this six years ago for you now to have a binding 
contract that does not include opening problems electronically.
 Yes, I do believe you're totally correct on this. I kinda 
had been thinking that especially since we had the meeting Friday and I 
kept hearing the same over and over, IBMLINK is what I know, not the 
other URL's. And it continues to highly urinate me that they don't have 
the guts, nads, choose your optimum word here, to admit it OR even more 
importantly, notify upfront. Somewhere in there I have to think breach 
of contract when you take away access without notification...




I have seen this when IBM forced session manager on us (instead of NetView 
Access) by the simple expedient of silently terminating the NVAS licence in our 
contract and substituting session manager instead. We had never agreed to that, 
but my boss had signed off on it when the contract was up for renewal and there 
we were. More recently, when Sterling was bought by IBM, IBM was incapable of 
putting the NDM licence under the same contract we have always had opened PMRs 
under. IBM silently opened a new customer number just for NDM and made a 
colleague of mine admin for it. Need I mention that none of us could access 
that customer number?

I feel your pain. This is certainly NO customer service at all. In the long 
run, it is one more nail in z/OSs coffin
   Yes the pounding of nails at IBM is just astounding. A bigot of 
them I've been, but no more...

.

Barbara Nitz

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--

--

Brian W. France
Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
Pennsylvania State University
Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
814-863-4739
b...@psu.edu 

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Carl Sagan

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[ibmmain]

Brian,

> Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this 
> subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never 
> free and that promoting web sites costs money.

I think what you're seeing here is that someone at IBM screwed up royally. It 
all comes out because IBM now 'consolidates' their many tools on different 
platforms into one (named SR), and SR is built on assumptions that IBM came up 
with in their ivory tower. SR exposes that most of the customer data bases are 
equally screwed up. New customer numbers are assigned sometimes on a 
product-by-product basis, and it is sufficient for one manager at your site 
signing off on something like this six years ago for you now to have a binding 
contract that does not include opening problems electronically.

I have seen this when IBM forced session manager on us (instead of NetView 
Access) by the simple expedient of silently terminating the NVAS licence in our 
contract and substituting session manager instead. We had never agreed to that, 
but my boss had signed off on it when the contract was up for renewal and there 
we were. More recently, when Sterling was bought by IBM, IBM was incapable of 
putting the NDM licence under the same contract we have always had opened PMRs 
under. IBM silently opened a new customer number just for NDM and made a 
colleague of mine admin for it. Need I mention that none of us could access 
that customer number?

I feel your pain. This is certainly NO customer service at all. In the long 
run, it is one more nail in z/OSs coffin.

Barbara Nitz

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Scott Ford]

Brian,

Agreed, but everything nowadays cost money

Scott ford
www.identityforge.com

Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll 
understand. - Chinese Proverb


On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Brian France  wrote:

> Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this 
> subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never free 
> and that promoting web sites costs money. And people at phones don't? IBMLINK 
> I'm told has been this way since either 98 or 99. I state, I never entered 
> that way. I entered via some support url that was quite long and was book 
> marked on my system. Later when all of my id's that had been created were 
> merged into one, the site has eventually changed to ibm.com/support. The 
> individual on the other end maintains no knowledge of this site only his 
> knowing to IBMLINK. So, at this point they want hit us up for like 300K over 
> a five year period to have this access for 7ids under their enterprise 
> contract.  Can ya believe this?!?!?! I have no idea how many of you are out 
> there that have had this access and still do, I just hope you can maintain 
> it. Otherwise, I ask any of you out there to stand up now, cause otherwise 
> the access is just gonna be trimmed down one at a time until we're all paying 
> for electronic access.  How about SHARE? Yell, scream...
> 
> Currently one user id for the q/a ( which now is the ability to do PMR's, 
> searches, etc for z/OS ) is like 7k/year.
> In a power point that came out on July of 2012 that we were given has a slide 
> that would suggest your MLC code does NOT cover this ability to submit a bug 
> on IBM's code ELECTRONICALLY. You have to pay the additional. How truly SAD 
> this is...
> 
> 
>> We have 10 of us that can open SRs (along with SIS, AST, and SRD) but only 
>> one of us has Q&A. We do not have that Enterprise agreement.
>> 
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
> 
> -- 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Brian W. France
> Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
> Pennsylvania State University
> Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
> Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
> 814-863-4739
> b...@psu.edu 
> 
> "To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
> 
> Carl Sagan
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Brian France]

Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this 
subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never 
free and that promoting web sites costs money. And people at phones 
don't? IBMLINK I'm told has been this way since either 98 or 99. I 
state, I never entered that way. I entered via some support url that was 
quite long and was book marked on my system. Later when all of my id's 
that had been created were merged into one, the site has eventually 
changed to ibm.com/support. The individual on the other end maintains no 
knowledge of this site only his knowing to IBMLINK. So, at this point 
they want hit us up for like 300K over a five year period to have this 
access for 7ids under their enterprise contract.  Can ya believe 
this?!?!?! I have no idea how many of you are out there that have had 
this access and still do, I just hope you can maintain it. Otherwise, I 
ask any of you out there to stand up now, cause otherwise the access is 
just gonna be trimmed down one at a time until we're all paying for 
electronic access.  How about SHARE? Yell, scream...


Currently one user id for the q/a ( which now is the ability to do 
PMR's, searches, etc for z/OS ) is like 7k/year.
In a power point that came out on July of 2012 that we were given has a 
slide that would suggest your MLC code does NOT cover this ability to 
submit a bug on IBM's code ELECTRONICALLY. You have to pay the 
additional. How truly SAD this is...




We have 10 of us that can open SRs (along with SIS, AST, and SRD) but only one of 
us has Q&A. We do not have that Enterprise agreement.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--

--

Brian W. France
Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
Pennsylvania State University
Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
814-863-4739
b...@psu.edu 

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Carl Sagan

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[zMan]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Paul Peplinski wrote:

> We have 10 of us that can open SRs (along with SIS, AST, and SRD) but only
> one of us has Q&A. We do not have that Enterprise agreement.


Or so you think :-(
-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Paul Peplinski]

We have 10 of us that can open SRs (along with SIS, AST, and SRD) but only one 
of us has Q&A. We do not have that Enterprise agreement.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Brian France]

Well I continue to push. I'm asking for documentation as to when this 
change went into effect. Clarification on the dollar$ cause, WOW!!  
Still am being told we never should've been able to do what we've been 
doing. I state back there's a hell of a lot of others in the world doing 
this and you mean to tell me you've left us all go for 10-12 years. 
Absurd...  I want the documentation on the new policy...  To change ones 
user id WITHOUT giving them notification is beyond ludicrous. To change 
every ones at a site and not notify them is totally unacceptable. If 
this does pan out to be no wonder people are leaving. NOT one other 
vendor does this. IBM, you are $ad...



 To answer gil's question.

SoftwareXcel basic - is a per user id job that aparently doesn't have 
some features of the the. We picked up basic say 5 or so years back just 
to ask How To questions.


SoftwareXcel enterprise - to my understanding as many id's as you'd 
like. When I got to 7 this is were I was told I should be. Based on the 
quote, it was indeed cheaper.


On 10/11/2012 11:59 AM, Joel C. Ewing wrote:

On 10/11/2012 08:37 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:07:35 -0700, Phil Smith wrote:
So it sounds like they've lost the distinction between HOWTO and bug 
reports. That would be a big step backward, and indeed irritating. I 
do understand the *theory* behind this: if every Tom, Dick, and Jane 
at every IBM customer can open PMRs, they'll be swamped with Stupid 
User questions, and not get any real bugs fixed. But that doesn't 
justify forcing it all through one ID: if they're going to do that, 
they're basically encouraging shared IDs, which is a bad idea (and 
likely prohibited by their TOS, but that's another issue). Limiting 
it to some reasonable number - maybe ten - IDs per installation 
might make sense, but we all know that in large shops, the DB2 guys 
and the sysprogs may not even know each other's names, so one is 
ludicrous.



Is this per user x per product?

per user x per product x per licensed system?

-- gil


At least in the past it was the case that chargeable on-line service 
support costs were purely based on number of authorized users at the 
installation, without regard for number of product licenses or 
systems.   The product licenses only entered into consideration in 
that one instance of the product under maintenance license was 
sufficient to allow the installation to open PMRs against the product.


If you didn't have the required on-line access to report a PMR on a 
licensed product, the alternative was to telephone the Support 
Center.  I would think reporting problems by phone would have to be 
more labor intensive and more costly for IBM, not just an irritant for 
the customer having to wait around for phone queue call-backs and 
trying to explain verbally something best illustrated by cut and paste 
or digital documentation. It makes absolutely no sense to me that IBM 
would think it a good idea to discourage PMR reporting by erecting 
financial barriers to the most efficient reporting methods, as the end 
result is that their knowledge of problems and problem resolution will 
be delayed, causing their product quality to suffer if installations 
are discouraged from reporting problems in a timely fashion.  When an 
installation reports a problem, the resolution of that problem doesn't 
just benefit that installation, but potentially all other 
installations using that product.  The reporting installation is 
actually performing a "service" for IBM, so the ease of reporting and 
the costs that IBM expects the installation to incur for that process 
should reflect that fact!


In the spirit of SHARE, we would even occasionally report a problem 
for which we already had found a circumvention, especially if the 
resolution had taken a significant effort on our part and finding an 
APAR resolution would be an obvious benefit for others (and if we 
didn't want to fight the same problem in the next product release).




--

--

Brian W. France
Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
Pennsylvania State University
Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
814-863-4739
b...@psu.edu 

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Carl Sagan

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Charles Mills]

> In the spirit of SHARE, we would even occasionally 
> report a problem for which we already had found a circumvention

I have had a long-open SR, in which I have invested a lot of hours -- SOLELY 
because the group here told me I was being a bad citizen if I did not report 
the bug, even though I had found a perfectly acceptable way around it.

And yes, not I have run into the SoftwareXcel restriction -- I could not even 
UPDATE my EXISTING SR after IBM asked me for more information. VERY annoying.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Joel C. Ewing
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:00 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

On 10/11/2012 08:37 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:07:35 -0700, Phil Smith wrote:
>> So it sounds like they've lost the distinction between HOWTO and bug 
>> reports. That would be a big step backward, and indeed irritating. I do 
>> understand the *theory* behind this: if every Tom, Dick, and Jane at every 
>> IBM customer can open PMRs, they'll be swamped with Stupid User questions, 
>> and not get any real bugs fixed. But that doesn't justify forcing it all 
>> through one ID: if they're going to do that, they're basically encouraging 
>> shared IDs, which is a bad idea (and likely prohibited by their TOS, but 
>> that's another issue). Limiting it to some reasonable number - maybe ten - 
>> IDs per installation might make sense, but we all know that in large shops, 
>> the DB2 guys and the sysprogs may not even know each other's names, so one 
>> is ludicrous.
>>
> Is this per user x per product?
>
> per user x per product x per licensed system?
>
> -- gil
>
>
At least in the past it was the case that chargeable on-line service 
support costs were purely based on number of authorized users at the 
installation, without regard for number of product licenses or systems. 
   The product licenses only entered into consideration in that one 
instance of the product under maintenance license was sufficient to 
allow the installation to open PMRs against the product.

If you didn't have the required on-line access to report a PMR on a 
licensed product, the alternative was to telephone the Support Center.  
I would think reporting problems by phone would have to be more labor 
intensive and more costly for IBM, not just an irritant for the customer 
having to wait around for phone queue call-backs and trying to explain 
verbally something best illustrated by cut and paste or digital 
documentation. It makes absolutely no sense to me that IBM would think 
it a good idea to discourage PMR reporting by erecting financial 
barriers to the most efficient reporting methods, as the end result is 
that their knowledge of problems and problem resolution will be delayed, 
causing their product quality to suffer if installations are discouraged 
from reporting problems in a timely fashion.  When an installation 
reports a problem, the resolution of that problem doesn't just benefit 
that installation, but potentially all other installations using that 
product.  The reporting installation is actually performing a "service" 
for IBM, so the ease of reporting and the costs that IBM expects the 
installation to incur for that process should reflect that fact!

In the spirit of SHARE, we would even occasionally report a problem for 
which we already had found a circumvention, especially if the resolution 
had taken a significant effort on our part and finding an APAR 
resolution would be an obvious benefit for others (and if we didn't want 
to fight the same problem in the next product release).

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Joel C. Ewing]

On 10/11/2012 08:37 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:07:35 -0700, Phil Smith wrote:

So it sounds like they've lost the distinction between HOWTO and bug reports. 
That would be a big step backward, and indeed irritating. I do understand the 
*theory* behind this: if every Tom, Dick, and Jane at every IBM customer can 
open PMRs, they'll be swamped with Stupid User questions, and not get any real 
bugs fixed. But that doesn't justify forcing it all through one ID: if they're 
going to do that, they're basically encouraging shared IDs, which is a bad idea 
(and likely prohibited by their TOS, but that's another issue). Limiting it to 
some reasonable number - maybe ten - IDs per installation might make sense, but 
we all know that in large shops, the DB2 guys and the sysprogs may not even 
know each other's names, so one is ludicrous.


Is this per user x per product?

per user x per product x per licensed system?

-- gil


At least in the past it was the case that chargeable on-line service 
support costs were purely based on number of authorized users at the 
installation, without regard for number of product licenses or systems. 
  The product licenses only entered into consideration in that one 
instance of the product under maintenance license was sufficient to 
allow the installation to open PMRs against the product.


If you didn't have the required on-line access to report a PMR on a 
licensed product, the alternative was to telephone the Support Center.  
I would think reporting problems by phone would have to be more labor 
intensive and more costly for IBM, not just an irritant for the customer 
having to wait around for phone queue call-backs and trying to explain 
verbally something best illustrated by cut and paste or digital 
documentation. It makes absolutely no sense to me that IBM would think 
it a good idea to discourage PMR reporting by erecting financial 
barriers to the most efficient reporting methods, as the end result is 
that their knowledge of problems and problem resolution will be delayed, 
causing their product quality to suffer if installations are discouraged 
from reporting problems in a timely fashion.  When an installation 
reports a problem, the resolution of that problem doesn't just benefit 
that installation, but potentially all other installations using that 
product.  The reporting installation is actually performing a "service" 
for IBM, so the ease of reporting and the costs that IBM expects the 
installation to incur for that process should reflect that fact!


In the spirit of SHARE, we would even occasionally report a problem for 
which we already had found a circumvention, especially if the resolution 
had taken a significant effort on our part and finding an APAR 
resolution would be an obvious benefit for others (and if we didn't want 
to fight the same problem in the next product release).


--
Joel C. Ewing,Bentonville, AR   jcew...@acm.org 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Paul Gilmartin]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 06:07:35 -0700, Phil Smith wrote:
>
>So it sounds like they've lost the distinction between HOWTO and bug reports. 
>That would be a big step backward, and indeed irritating. I do understand the 
>*theory* behind this: if every Tom, Dick, and Jane at every IBM customer can 
>open PMRs, they'll be swamped with Stupid User questions, and not get any real 
>bugs fixed. But that doesn't justify forcing it all through one ID: if they're 
>going to do that, they're basically encouraging shared IDs, which is a bad 
>idea (and likely prohibited by their TOS, but that's another issue). Limiting 
>it to some reasonable number - maybe ten - IDs per installation might make 
>sense, but we all know that in large shops, the DB2 guys and the sysprogs may 
>not even know each other's names, so one is ludicrous.
> 
Is this per user x per product?

per user x per product x per licensed system?

-- gil

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Phil Smith]

Brian France wrote:
> I'm surmising that y'all, like us, have multiple user id's for support at 
> www.ibm.com/support. We have several people here that have opened PMR's over 
> the past many many years. A couple of weeks back I went in to open an issue 
> and found that I was no longer entitled to z/OS. What I found out was that 
> only one person in my group could open a z/OS related PMR. After some 
> questions to many IBM'ers my id was set back, no one knowing why the change 
> had occurred. In trying to get the rest of my colleagues their access back 
> I'm told that we will have to pay. That only my ID has Software Xcel and it's 
> the basic. Well, yes, we knew that. Several years ago we opted to take it as 
> the only id that could ask HOW to Support questions. Now I'm told that if all 
> my colleagues are to have id's to open PMR's, which is 7 of us, that we would 
> have to move to SoftwareXcel Enterprise and the quote is quite an eye popper. 
>  So, long story short, I'm interested in the rest of ya... Any one seen this 
> yet? Hell, even CA doesn't charge for userid's to open problem support 
> records for software we are already paying support on.

So it sounds like they've lost the distinction between HOWTO and bug reports. 
That would be a big step backward, and indeed irritating. I do understand the 
*theory* behind this: if every Tom, Dick, and Jane at every IBM customer can 
open PMRs, they'll be swamped with Stupid User questions, and not get any real 
bugs fixed. But that doesn't justify forcing it all through one ID: if they're 
going to do that, they're basically encouraging shared IDs, which is a bad idea 
(and likely prohibited by their TOS, but that's another issue). Limiting it to 
some reasonable number - maybe ten - IDs per installation might make sense, but 
we all know that in large shops, the DB2 guys and the sysprogs may not even 
know each other's names, so one is ludicrous.

The fact that nobody at your end knew about the change isn't good, either. If 
this had been a 3AM SEV1, things could have gotten nasty...

Surely one of the good IBMers on this list can find the real scoop. If this is 
really the policy, then it needs work.
--
...phsiii

Phil Smith III
p...@voltage.com
Voltage Security, Inc.
www.voltage.com


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

IBM, id's to open pmr's, lot$a $$$$ now involved?...

[Brian France]

All,
 I'm surmising that y'all, like us, have multiple user id's for 
support at www.ibm.com/support. We have several people here that have 
opened PMR's over the past many many years. A couple of weeks back I 
went in to open an issue and found that I was no longer entitled to 
z/OS. What I found out was that only one person in my group could open a 
z/OS related PMR. After some questions to many IBM'ers my id was set 
back, no one knowing why the change had occurred. In trying to get the 
rest of my colleagues their access back I'm told that we will have to 
pay. That only my ID has Software Xcel and it's the basic. Well, yes, we 
knew that. Several years ago we opted to take it as the only id that 
could ask HOW to Support questions. Now I'm told that if all my 
colleagues are to have id's to open PMR's, which is 7 of us, that we 
would have to move to SoftwareXcel Enterprise and the quote is quite an 
eye popper.  So, long story short, I'm interested in the rest of ya... 
Any one seen this yet? Hell, even CA doesn't charge for userid's to open 
problem support records for software we are already paying support on.

--

--

Brian W. France
Systems Administrator (Mainframe)
Pennsylvania State University
Administrative Information Services - Infrastructure/SYSARC
Rm 25 Shields Bldg., University Park, Pa. 16802
814-863-4739
b...@psu.edu 

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

Carl Sagan

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN