Re: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library)
I'm totally on board with Tom Marchant's position. It's why I've presented at so many SHARE sessions over the years. Our profession is uplifted by spreading knowledge and sharing experience. OTOH I can think of a few cases where a little less cleverness early on might have ameliorated some solution designs that eventually became problematic. A major credit reporting entity based in SoCal wrote a new application that needed some kind of data base. This was in the 70s, long before DB2 and well before VSAM APIs were built seamlessly into COBOL. The clever designers came up with a novel solution. Create a giant multivolume PDS (PO) that could be processed in direct access mode. There was no restriction at the time on opening a PDS as DSORG=DA. It was fast, efficient, and reliable. Trouble was, IBM eventually decided that this was an unnatural perversion and inserted a check for PDS at open time. Last I heard, the customer routinely had to obtain and manage a special usermod from IBM to allow the app to run at all. Another company created a mechanism that serialized CICS data access at the record level using a common storage locking table. This was before LPAR, so all CICS regions could access the same common storage. Then came LPAR, where each system had its own separate common storage. Not all CICS regions could communicate with each other directly via memory. The original design was modified to allow one region to be the traffic cop for all regions. It worked great except when an outage occurred on the lock region. That region could be moved to another LPAR, but there was a several-minute application interruption at each end of the move. At one time this was just a cost of doing business, but when parallel sysplex came along with its promise of continuous availability, these periodic outages became harder to justify. If that original solution had not been so successful so long ago, there might have been a move to coupling facility lock structures that would have been impervious to individual region availability. None of this is to undermine Tom's compelling argument. Heck, it's Friday. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW robin...@sce.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 6:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library) On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:58 -0500, Farley, Peter wrote: > My unfortunate experience has been that ordinary users are not >considered smart enough to see or understand what storage admins do. > This is one of my pet peeves, so I'll extend your rant a bit. Ever since I started in this business, people have warned me that certain people aren't smart enough to understand, and that giving them too much information will cause problems. As an application programmer, I was told that if I gave operators too much information,they wouldn't understand and would f*** things up worse than if I just keep them ignorant. As an Amdahl SE, I was told that the hardware guys couldn't handle software knowledge, and neither could the customer's sysprogs. As a system programmer, it was the applications programmers, the system analysts, auditors, managers and vendors. Now as an ISV software developer, it is the customers and the support people. There is one person at a customer site who I was told is totally unreasonable, and incapable of learning or following directions. I had occasion to talk on the phone with this person to help resolve an issue. We worked together looking at various things until we discovered the cause of the problem. As it happened, a relatively minor mistake had been made. In the process of working with the him, I learned that everything I had been told about him was untrue. He was bright, thoughtful, and a damn good sysprog. He knew better than us how to do things, and had his own procedures that make more sense than the canned procedures that we provided. In over 45 years in this business, everyone I have ever met does a better job with more information. Even more importantly, when people are treated with respect and with the assumption that they are competent, they do better work. Sure, sometimes all of us make mistakes, sometimes with catastrophic results. I remember well the day that I was getting ready to IPL a test LPAR and reset a production LPAR instead. Was I stoned or stupid? Neither. The user-dummy is a myth. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library)
Personally I prefer that if they can read it in a manual or on the internet, I should help them, if asked, with how that works in my environment. Sometimes users have artificial constraints, Security, Resources, etc... that might make using a "feature" a challenge. If I can provide mentoring or guidance and they can do their job better on the mainframe, then the mainframe will be a valuable platform to use. Since I really want the mainframe to be valuable (or more valuable than those little things) - I do my best to educate as often as possible. Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of John McKown > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 8:55 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library) > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Farley, Peter x23353 < > peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Tom. Totally agree. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a > > day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. (Maimonides)" > > > > I prefer the variant: "Give a man a fish and you feed hime for a day; teach a > man to fish and his wife never sees him on the weekends." > > > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library)
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Farley, Peter x23353 < peter.far...@broadridge.com> wrote: > Thanks Tom. Totally agree. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a > day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. (Maimonides)" > I prefer the variant: "Give a man a fish and you feed hime for a day; teach a man to fish and his wife never sees him on the weekends." > > Peter > > -- There’s no obfuscated Perl contest because it’s pointless. —Jeff Polk Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library)
Thanks Tom. Totally agree. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. (Maimonides)" Peter -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 9:15 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library) On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:58 -0500, Farley, Peter wrote: > My unfortunate experience has been that ordinary users >are not considered smart enough to see or understand what >storage admins do. This is one of my pet peeves, so I'll extend your rant a bit. Ever since I started in this business, people have warned me that certain people aren't smart enough to understand, and that giving them too much information will cause problems. As an application programmer, I was told that if I gave operators too much information,they wouldn't understand and would f*** things up worse than if I just keep them ignorant. As an Amdahl SE, I was told that the hardware guys couldn't handle software knowledge, and neither could the customer's sysprogs. As a system programmer, it was the applications programmers, the system analysts, auditors, managers and vendors. Now as an ISV software developer, it is the customers and the support people. There is one person at a customer site who I was told is totally unreasonable, and incapable of learning or following directions. I had occasion to talk on the phone with this person to help resolve an issue. We worked together looking at various things until we discovered the cause of the problem. As it happened, a relatively minor mistake had been made. In the process of working with the him, I learned that everything I had been told about him was untrue. He was bright, thoughtful, and a damn good sysprog. He knew better than us how to do things, and had his own procedures that make more sense than the canned procedures that we provided. In over 45 years in this business, everyone I have ever met does a better job with more information. Even more importantly, when people are treated with respect and with the assumption that they are competent, they do better work. Sure, sometimes all of us make mistakes, sometimes with catastrophic results. I remember well the day that I was getting ready to IPL a test LPAR and reset a production LPAR instead. Was I stoned or stupid? Neither. The user-dummy is a myth. -- This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library)
Tom Marchant wrote: >This is one of my pet peeves, so I'll extend your rant a bit. >Ever since I started in this business, people have warned me that certain >people aren't smart enough to understand, and that giving them too much >information will cause problems. As an application programmer, I was told that >if I gave operators too much information,they wouldn't understand and would >f*** things up worse than if I just keep them ignorant. You must kick them (who told you nonsense) hard and properly where the sun is not shining somewhere between their legs. It reminds me of the joke I saw on Whats-App: 'If I tell people that the brain is an App, perhaps then they will start using it!'. >The user-dummy is a myth. True. I have one example to share - my users think I am also responsible for e-mails (we send out hundreds e-mails with RACF reports every day). So they contact me for e-mail related problems. I then guide them to do tests (delivery reports, e-mails without attachments and temporary usage of private addresses, etc.) and guide them to ask the right questions to the right e-mail administrator (our own or their own admins) for help. In the end they now know how to fix e-mail problems themselves. Yes, e-mail problems were resolved in the end. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library)
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Tom Marchant < 000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:58 -0500, Farley, Peter wrote: > > > My unfortunate experience has been that ordinary users > >are not considered smart enough to see or understand what > >storage admins do. > > This is one of my pet peeves, so I'll extend your rant a bit. > > Ever since I started in this business, people have warned me that certain > people aren't smart enough to understand, and that giving them too much > information will cause problems. > > As an application programmer, I was told that if I gave operators too much > information,they wouldn't understand and would f*** things up worse than if > I just keep them ignorant. > > As an Amdahl SE, I was told that the hardware guys couldn't handle > software knowledge, and neither could the customer's sysprogs. > > As a system programmer, it was the applications programmers, the system > analysts, auditors, managers and vendors. > > Now as an ISV software developer, it is the customers and the support > people. There is one person at a customer site who I was told is totally > unreasonable, and incapable of learning or following directions. I had > occasion to talk on the phone with this person to help resolve an issue. We > worked together looking at various things until we discovered the cause of > the problem. > > As it happened, a relatively minor mistake had been made. In the process > of working with the him, I learned that everything I had been told about > him was untrue. He was bright, thoughtful, and a damn good sysprog. He knew > better than us how to do things, and had his own procedures that make more > sense than the canned procedures that we provided. > > In over 45 years in this business, everyone I have ever met does a better > job with more information. Even more importantly, when people are treated > with respect and with the assumption that they are competent, they do > better work. > > Sure, sometimes all of us make mistakes, sometimes with catastrophic > results. I remember well the day that I was getting ready to IPL a test > LPAR and reset a production LPAR instead. Was I stoned or stupid? Neither. > > The user-dummy is a myth. > A nice post, with which I am in general agreement. There are, of course, always exceptions. I've known, very few, some who use extra knowledge to subvert the "spirit and intent" (my colonel's expression) of some business rule. Of course, many business rules seem to exist only to hinder the workers. I really dislike it when I'm told to "answer the question as asked with no elaboration". This is one reason why I'm an FSF supporter and a GNU/Linux user. I've been around for a while and still despise OCO. > > -- > Tom Marchant > -- There’s no obfuscated Perl contest because it’s pointless. —Jeff Polk Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Smart enough (was Re: SDB and Program Object Library)
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:58 -0500, Farley, Peter wrote: > My unfortunate experience has been that ordinary users >are not considered smart enough to see or understand what >storage admins do. This is one of my pet peeves, so I'll extend your rant a bit. Ever since I started in this business, people have warned me that certain people aren't smart enough to understand, and that giving them too much information will cause problems. As an application programmer, I was told that if I gave operators too much information,they wouldn't understand and would f*** things up worse than if I just keep them ignorant. As an Amdahl SE, I was told that the hardware guys couldn't handle software knowledge, and neither could the customer's sysprogs. As a system programmer, it was the applications programmers, the system analysts, auditors, managers and vendors. Now as an ISV software developer, it is the customers and the support people. There is one person at a customer site who I was told is totally unreasonable, and incapable of learning or following directions. I had occasion to talk on the phone with this person to help resolve an issue. We worked together looking at various things until we discovered the cause of the problem. As it happened, a relatively minor mistake had been made. In the process of working with the him, I learned that everything I had been told about him was untrue. He was bright, thoughtful, and a damn good sysprog. He knew better than us how to do things, and had his own procedures that make more sense than the canned procedures that we provided. In over 45 years in this business, everyone I have ever met does a better job with more information. Even more importantly, when people are treated with respect and with the assumption that they are competent, they do better work. Sure, sometimes all of us make mistakes, sometimes with catastrophic results. I remember well the day that I was getting ready to IPL a test LPAR and reset a production LPAR instead. Was I stoned or stupid? Neither. The user-dummy is a myth. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
