On Friday, 01/12/2007 at 10:33 CST, Mike Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is we are customers. We should not need to know IBM-internal > buzzwords AMEN! EVERY ONE of you who doesn't like what IBMLink 2000 is/isn't doing needs to send in Feedbacks. Likewise, if you LIKE something, let them know that, too. Why? So it won't go away! Find your z/OS brethren. Get THEM to send in THEIR feedbacks. I've already commented on how to deal with responsiveness issues. >, and certainly when trying to place an order we should be able > to do so swiftly, selecting from a menu of products or service. No argument from me. > The other point is: does it REALLY cost IBM anything significant to > support a stable application? Yes. If you are going to support it, then you must have the ability to - reproduce the problem in-house - alter the application - test the application > Perhaps just "functionally stabilizing" it, > and telling us we have to look for new features in IBMLink 2000 would > suffice. We could continue to use the legacy (i.e "productive") tool for > what we've always used it for, and get familiar with IBMLink (and report > feature failures if it actually helps) for new features. That leaves two interfaces to the backends. That means the backend or an extra layer of middleware must support this access method. You can't make changes to them without consideration for the 3270 side that is "stablized". Regression testing is then required. There goes the idea of zero-cost maintenence. And I say this as a 12-year veteran of System Test. If something is stabilized, that means no new function BUT the old function remains usable. THAT means testing changes to ensure you haven't broken it. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." One of two things will happen: You'll change your process to conform to the abilities of the tool, or you will change the tool to conform to your process. Naturally, in the real world, some of both will happen, but decide which you would prefer more of and then take action to achieve that goal. If you choose not to persevere with Feedbacks and dialog, then your process will change far more than the tool will. I wish the 3270 interface would remain for you, too. (I don't get access to either one. :-( ) Since the announcement, I'm sure that all of the Feedbacks the 3270 users have opened with their [detailed and specific] objections are being reviewed. Ummm.... all y'all *did* open Feedbacks, right? Not just blowing off steam here? BTW, I'm guessing that "3270 is better. Long live 3270." is probably not going to get any attention. Explain *why* 3270 is better for *you*. Be specific. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
