On 12/18/2009 07:24 AM, Shmuel Metz , Seymour J. wrote: > In <listserv%200912081359163671.0...@bama.ua.edu>, on 12/08/2009 > at 01:59 PM, "Mark H. Young" <mark.yo...@fairfaxcounty.gov> said: > >> Back in the day when CA (Computer Associates) would send you some of >> their mainframe software, they also included their own homegrown >> installation software to use. Anyone remember the name of it? As I >> recall, it was really bad and almost no one ever used it. They only >> made jokes about how bad it was. > > Even CA employees were advising against aggravator. >
My main objection to the old installation software was not whether it did or did not work, but a strong aversion to the concept of each vendor developing and expecting their customers to deal with their own unique proprietary interface into SMP/E, rather than just finding ways to fit their installation procedures into universally available existing ISPF SMP/E dialogs. It may have seemed "cool" to CA support people who only dealt with CA's conventions, but for customer sysprogs dealing with many other vendors, "uniqueness" is not appreciated. Also, when there are local installation standards on maintenance, one has to first decipher what vendor front-ends are doing well enough to understand whether they are in compliance with local standards or whether you must modify or suppress some of what they attempt to do. -- Joel C. Ewing, Fort Smith, AR jremoveccapsew...@acm.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
