Bob Shannon wrote:
In the "golden days" (just 5 or 6 years ago,
even), many companies built in training time
as part of each IT employee's performance plan.
That may be true, but IMO training budgets never recovered from cutbacks
in the early 1990ss.
Bob Shannon
Well, yes, that's absolutely
>In the "golden days" (just 5 or 6 years ago,
>even), many companies built in training time
>as part of each IT employee's performance plan.
That may be true, but IMO training budgets never recovered from cutbacks
in the early 1990ss.
Bob Shannon
-
Tom Marchant wrote:
Does anyone know when 3.4 was first introduced?
How about when the Workplace (3.11) was introduced?
There's a lack of credibility when people talk about 3.4 as an example
of using new features.
As to panels that pop up to tell me about new features, I find them
to be rather
Does anyone know when 3.4 was first introduced?
How about when the Workplace (3.11) was introduced?
There's a lack of credibility when people talk about 3.4 as an example
of using new features.
As to panels that pop up to tell me about new features, I find them
to be rather annoying. If they te
== Don Leahy == wrote2006-05-18 20:00:
I agree that sometimes you have to hit people over the head to get their
attention, but once they see the benefit of the new tool it isn't that
difficult to convince them to use it, *if* it is easy to use. If a
product is beneficial but di
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Salt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Cost of tools (was: Migrating from OPS/MVS to AF/OPERATOR)
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/15/2006
at 08
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/15/2006
at 08:49 PM, Dave Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>My experience is that 90% of programmers use the upgraded ISPF/PDF
>interface almost immediately after the new option is added to their
>ISPF menu. The other 10% eventually come around, just as they
>event
In a recent note, "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" said:
> Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 09:09:37 -0300
>
> That's not my experience; I've seen all too many programmers ignoring
> useful ISPF enhancements for many releases. In some cases they will
> try them once they see ... me using them, but in oth
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/15/2006
at 08:49 PM, Dave Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>My experience is that 90% of programmers use the upgraded ISPF/PDF
>interface almost immediately after the new option is added to their
>ISPF menu. The other 10% eventually come around, just as they
>event
In a recent note, Edward Jaffe said:
> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:57:06 -0700
>
> Bruce Hewson wrote:
> > I continue to be astonished/annoyed/aggravated etc by how many
> > sysprogs/developers/operators insist on using basic Mod-2 (24x80) format
> > 3270 emulator screens.
>
> Amen to that
Bruce Hewson wrote:
I continue to be astonished/annoyed/aggravated etc by how many
sysprogs/developers/operators insist on using basic Mod-2 (24x80) format
3270 emulator screens.
Amen to that, Bro!
Funny story. During last month's beta testing of an upcoming software
release, it was disco
This sales pitch is getting annoying. Additional comments below.
On Tue, 16 May 2006 00:00:11 +, Dave Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>From: Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>The real, total cost includes:
>>
>>- Management time to evaluate, negotiate, and purchase
>
>Evaluation is usu
3.4? I abandoned 3.4 nearly ten years ago.
Now I use the ISPF workplace instead.
Tom Marchant
On Mon, 15 May 2006 20:49:15 +, Dave Salt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Bruce A. Black wrote:
>>IMHO, its not so simple. You are assuming that by installing such a tool,
>>it would automatically an
I really dont care what people say, you can lead a horse to water etc.
I continue to be astonished/annoyed/aggravated etc by how many
sysprogs/developers/operators insist on using basic Mod-2 (24x80) format
3270 emulator screens.
It's not as if they havent been shown how to improve there work e
See, That's the point.
There is no good reason to charge Major $'s for support that they don't provide.
Let's say that a vendor has some software that they sell for $5K per year
They have a client base of 100 clients (100x $5K = $500K)
They have 2 people doing support of the product at $100K per
From: Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As someone who has been on the vendor side of this one, let me say that
"$5000" is only a small part of the cost, and if you do your cost
justification based on that, then any perceptive manager is going to give
you a thumbs down.
The real, total cost inclu
MA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Cost of tools (was: Migrating from OPS/MVS to AF/OPERATOR)
>Bruce A. Black wrote:
>IMHO, its not so simple. You are assuming that by installing such a tool,
>it would automatically and enthusiastically be used by all or most of those
>programmers. Personally
Dave is a bit evangelical - nothing wrong with that I guess as, like the
rest of us, he has to eat.
I'm a little in agreement with John; seems it's getting harder to get
the bucks spent (initially). As I've said before, sometimes I wonder how
ISVs survive at all - especially the smaller/newer ones.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Salt
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 3:49 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Cost of tools (was: Migrating from OPS/MVS to
> AF/OPERATOR)
>
>
Bruce A. Black wrote:
IMHO, its not so simple. You are assuming that by installing such a tool,
it would automatically and enthusiastically be used by all or most of those
programmers. Personally I find that inertia is a major factor.
My experience is that 90% of programmers use the upgraded
By the same stroke, I was at a shop where programmers were forced to
use the regular ISPF/PDF interface. Watching them work was
excruciatingly painful. They had about 120 programmers, which (at a
conservative estimate of $100,000 annual cost per programmer), would
have cost the company at least
From: "Eric N. Bielefeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think that this is one of those areas where the real answer is it
depends. Every shop is different. I know at P&H we had a lot of software
that was brought in, and then sat around unused.
By the same stroke, I was at a shop where programmers wer
On May 15, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Brian Westerman wrote:
---SNIP--
There will always be sites that absolutely MUST have the high cost,
platinum
level "commercially supported" software, even if it performs no
better, (and
sometimes worse) than the free
I think that this is one of those areas where the real answer is it depends.
Every shop is different. I know at P&H we had a lot of software that was
brought in, and then sat around unused.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
- Original Message
Dave Salt wrote:
From: Brian Westerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I just wanted to point out that a lot of money is "wasted" on products
that are
unnecessary, for a lot of reasons, and that sites need to stay on top of
what they are paying for.
While I don't disagree, I believe far more money is wa
>For instance, look at the VPS product, it's a great product, no question, and
>is very useful, but does it really need to cost QUITE so much?? The basic
>concept of what it does isn't rocket science, but I am
always surprised when I see what people are paying for VPS especially in light
of the
From: Brian Westerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I just wanted to point out that a lot of money is "wasted" on products that
are
unnecessary, for a lot of reasons, and that sites need to stay on top of
what they are paying for.
While I don't disagree, I believe far more money is wasted by NOT buying
Good Points,
I have a problem with software that requires other software, but that's a
whole different problem.
There IS a lot of new software out there, but how much of it is actually
necessary to get the job done, and at what cost?
The concept that free software has associated costs because
Brian, you won't get too much disagreement from me on what you say. But
two basic points:
1. Let's not confuse "cost" with "software price." The former doesn't have
too much to do with the latter. I'm all for saving on software prices but
not if it means increasing costs and/or risk. (I someti
Hi,
I have yet to find a site that's using one of the big ticket automation
products that could not replace all that they are doing with either one of
the free versions of the automation products or in some cases if they need
more capabilitites, the small-cost versions that I have (but only if the
>I would bet that IBM global services has some folks well versed in this
>by now of course employing them might not be free. There are probably
>some consultants who have done it also.
Actually the IBM services for a product-to-product migration like this one
would come right out of the product
(office) 301.986.3574
The dogmatist within is always worse than the enemy without.
S.J. Gould
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Ulrick
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:36 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Mi
Hi,
In order to save $$$ on software, I've been asked to pursue a migration
from CA/OPS-MVS R11 to AF/OPERATOR v3.4.1. This will involve converting
all of our existing OPS/MVS rules and commands to AF/OPERATOR. Two
questions:
1. Can AF/OPERATOR be run concurrently with OPS/MVS on the same
33 matches
Mail list logo
