RE: PTF for viewing open files (WRKJOB/DSPJOB) for V5R1

Excuse me if I wasn't clear in stating what I meant - I think it was
around 4am here in the UK when I typed that.
The PTF is to allow the Display Open Files option to default to showing
file detail, like record #, # of file I/O's, etc., instead of showing
Activation Group info by default.  There has been a PTF for this for every
release going back to V2R3 I think.  IBM are now suggesting they don't
have to provide a V5R1 PTF for this because they made some change to Ops
Nav to let you see the view you want.  I'm saying that, because I won't
use a PC as a console (I want the reliability and stability of a good old
not-so-dumb Twinax terminal for a system console) that if I happen to be
working at the system console (twinax) and have a need to display open
file details, I am STILL going to be annoyed because they haven't provided
a V5R1 PTF for this.  If they provided this PTF on past releases to avoid
the necessity of pressing F10 to see the view you want by default, thereby
implying pressing F10 was unnecessary work on the user's part and they
would provide a fix, are they now suggesting that it's OK for someone
working in a computer room on a twinax console  to have to press F10 on
V5R1 (whereas it wasn't deemed OK on prior releases), or maybe they are
suggesting you should now get up, go find a PC in some other room, and use
OpsNav on that ?  It wasn't OK to spend a second to press F10 but it's OK
to wait a minute (or more) that it will take to get OpsNav to get down to
the same info ?  It's inconsistent reasoning, and I hate inconsistency !
;-)

And to clarify what I thought I said, I think OpsNav is great, but I still
want a twinax console (at least until a PC console can run with no Windows
!).
I don't like being forced to use a cruise missile when a .22 can do the
job.  I know there are only so many development staff & dollars, but I
still don't agree with adding enhancements and features in Ops Nav only
that could and should be made available in CL or for green screen. I would
argue that one of the things (small though it may be) that makes the
400/iSeries so reliable is a simple twinax console you can rely on.  I can
count the times I've had problems with a twinax screen (apart for the tube
eventually wearing out) over the last 22 years on the fingers of one hand.
 I would need to be some kind of post-nuclear holocaust mutant to be able
to do the same for problems with a PC.


==================================

Stop Press !

I guess IBM though I was clear enough.  Here's their reply !
It looks like we'll finally get that user controlled switch (via a data
area) soon !  ;-)
(PS - I said mid Jan 2002 was fine - for me anyway !).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I like Neil's response. Really to the point with plenty of rational.  I
spoke with the developer and read him the response.  He has agreed to
put out a r510 ptf for this - the same as for prior releases and will
put something in next release such that just creating a data area (or
something similar) will enable the altered function.
He is rather involved and committed  in getting other stuff out in
December so he would like to target for mid Janurary 2002 as
availability date for the ptf.  Will you/customer accept that?
Let me know. THx.



...Neil





"Andy Nolen-Parkhouse" <aparkhouse@mediaone.net>
Sent by: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
2001/11/30 06:44
Please respond to midrange-l


        To:     <midrange-l@midrange.com>
        cc:
        Subject:        RE: PTF for viewing open files (WRKJOB/DSPJOB) for V5R1


Neil,

I'm not sure I see the link between using Operations Navigator to work
with jobs and your statement that you don't want a PC console.  I agree
with the wariness to control a production system with a PC, but I have
used Operations Navigator successfully on twinax-console systems.  Am I
making a mistake here or has something changed?  I don't see where 'this
feature is required there.'

Regards,
Andy Nolen-Parkhouse

> Well, that's nice to know, but the consensus from many AS400/iSeries
> professionals on Midrange-L (and elsewhere) is that there's no way in
> h**l they are going to use a PC as a system console, and this feature
is
> required there.