In a recent note, Leonard Woren said:
> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:42:30 -0800
>
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 08:37:14AM -0800, Mark Thomen ([log in to unmask])
> wrote:
> > However, we recognized the problem a few years ago (because
> > of a particular product that was creating invalid names) and that's why we
> > added the support to Catalog to prevent invalid data set names from being
> > cataloged. We made it the default because we felt the problems people had
> > with removing invalid data set names was difficult.
>
> So you made it even harder to remove the invalid names? Why don't IBM
> developers understand that there may be ancient catalog entries that
> an installation might want to clean up? It's just STUPID (or maybe
> extremely arrogant) to enforce the restrictions on existing names when
> the request is for deletion of the invalid name. I'm not going to be
> polite about it. Developers have no clue whatsoever about real
> customer shops that have been running OS since before they were born.
>
Hear, hear! It looks like you and me against the Universe.
Thanks for stating clearly what I stumbled about.
In fairness, however, perhaps the primary blame shouldn't be
directed at IBM. IBM was likely responding to a customer
Requirement, and if all of the customer base pool their
stupidity, they can muster far more than IBM alone. IBM's
weakness was largely in failing to remain steadfast in the
face of a stupid customer requirement.
I believe this is the second time in our parallel careers
that we have agreed on something. And the previous was on
a Friday the Thirteenth:
Linkname: IBM-MAIN archives -- May 2005 (#816)
URL:
http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0505&L=ibm-main&D=1&O=D&I=1&P=90563
-- gil
--
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
