-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chicklon, Tom Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:06 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: USS pedantry (was Friday musings on the future of 3270 applic ations
Ted, sorry to hear about the job loss (this coming from another former IBMer...). And I couldn't agree with the rest of your response more. This topic is NOT important! <SNIP> First - I too am sorry for such bad news. Second - Actually this topic is important but not from the "religious" argument viewpoint. The problem is, IBM management has shed itself of many people along with the positions or functions handled by those people. Some of those people handled things that we find important and that we need. One of those is a company [IBM] that knows where it came from and where it is going. However, by shedding itself of a standards manual that defined how software had to be developed and documented, IBM has now joined the "what ever" generation. So continuing down this road how soon do we run into a situation where an FMID is being used by a different component and so you won't be able to receive it? Or you can, and you apply it (with its ++DELETEs) and you wipe out a critical component that would kill your system if you kept going. All because some group, who has no understanding of what has come before, and loss of management oversight that would recognize the collision, says we can take this ID because it so closely matches what we have called our product or component... I've already seen this kind of thing, sounded the alarm, and was told we are too far into our product development, you should have said something n months ago. And that was back in 1991 when I was at STL working on AI Languages for IBM. Perhaps I have a few screws loose. But I am watching a slow progression, the catalyst of which, from where I sit is OCO. And I can see this decline to day in manuals from IBM from the new generation of O/S Component developers (TCP & OMVS types). But I also see it in other "system" manuals that have less and less information. I see it in answers to PMR/ETRs that take as much as 6 months to get resolution when the problem is so incredibly obvious (my co-worker dealt with this and has much more patience than I). How many have taken swipes at USS and say it's in the eye of the beholder? How many have said that it actually belongs to VTAM? How many yawn and say, will you guys just get over it? But "USS" is just another symptom of internal breakdown at IBM. And so these things need to be vocalized with IBM at SHARE and Disclosure Meetings. Until these things become painful to the management of IBM, it won't get better, it will get worse. Regards, Steve Thompson -- Opinions expressed by poster do not necessarily reflect the opinions of poster's employer -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
