My father an engineer in the hard school of knocks would say cars keep the parts companies in business. Being a ISV, software has bugs, enhancements which have to be resolved or written and implemented. I can tell you from a lot of experience some management ppl don't 'get it' ...
My $.02 worth Scott On Thursday, November 24, 2016, Mick Graley <mick.gra...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm a DB2 SysAdm/SysProg and DB2 maint always has reams of hold data. The > longer you leave it the bigger the job to wade through it all and build the > required jobs. Multiply it by many DB2 sub-systems and the job gets bigger > and bigger. You have to have the toleration fixes on the current release of > DB2 before you can upgrade to the next release (in case of fallback to the > old release with the new release catalog/directory structure) and that can > be a big job if you are way back on maintenance. > Cheers, > Mick. > > > On 24 November 2016 at 05:35, Edward Gould <edgould1...@comcast.net > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > On Nov 23, 2016, at 8:32 PM, Joel C. Ewing <jcew...@acm.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > I think the car analogy with computer systems breaks down on a number > > > of points (at least in the case of mainframes): > > > (1) while bleeding-edge-current is certainly not essential, the > > > further you get behind on software maintenance, the more costly it gets > > > in terms of time and person-hours to get reasonably current; and > without > > > being reasonably current you may not be able to utilize new hardware > > > that could be more cost effective, or needed when old hardware dies, or > > > needed to adapt to growing business requirements. The cost of failure > > > to do preventive maintenance on a car is bounded by the time and cost > > > for replacement transportation, no matter how much maintenance was > > skipped. > > > (2)software maintenance relating to security or data exposures may > > > need prompt attention to avoid much more expensive data loss or data > > > exposure scenarios, which may also have serious legal implications. > > > Failure to do preventive maintenance on a car doesn't generally make it > > > more susceptible to hackers or have legal implications, unless you fail > > > to repair an obvious safety hazard and that results in a > personal-injury > > > accident or death.. > > > (3)Unexpected failures of a lesser-maintained car more often than > > > not just causes a temporary loss of availability which with sufficient > > > funds can be easily resolved, as there are many ready substitutes for > > > the basic function of transportation. A corporate computer system has > > > company-specific data and company-specific applications which cannot > > > just be replaced by any generic computer system, and it may be > > > impossible for the company to stay in business very long without that > > > data and those applications. Recovery from some software failures that > > > result in data loss is only possible with adequate DR planning in > place, > > > and if adequate planning was not in place, recovery may not even be > > > possible at any price. While I believe a valid argument can be made > > > against applying maintenance just for the sake of maintenance, some of > > > the problems addressed by HIPER PTFs are so dire you really don't want > > > to wait for that failure to occur before installing the fix. > > > > > > Even with a car, while it may be cost-effective to avoid or stretch out > > > some preventive or recommended maintenance, I strongly suspect it would > > > not on balance be cheaper for you to take that to the extreme and, say, > > > never change the engine oil (unless of course your plan is to sell > > > the.car after a few years without disclosing the potential shortened > > > engine life and cheat the next owner). > > > Joel C. Ewing > > about 20 years ago I worked at such a place. They did NOT believe in > > applying maintenance. > > Along comes the Y2K problem and they were in a bind (to say the least). > > They decided to order a servpac (new at the time). > > They were a big user of DB2 (I have no knowledge of it) but they were > > really hurting in order to get up to snuff. > > They were non going to ORDER COBOL (current as it cost $5 more than the > > old) then LE hit them in the face and they *HAD* to order that. That > almost > > burst their gut. > > I am glad I got out of there. > > Ed > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu <javascript:;> with the message: > INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu <javascript:;> 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
