RE: [MI400] How does this software work??

["Bale, Dan" <Dan.Bale@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Yeah, there's undoubtably a number of things IBM could do to cripple the
software itself or, even worse as you point out, to induce poor
performance because of it.  Although if I'm IBM, I'm not sure I'd want
to royally piss off my customers, even if the performance degradation is
solely the fault of disabling FAST400.  "Hmmm, performance has been
screaming along, and now I install a PTF and my performance is shot!
What the @#$%, IBM?"  Forgetting all along that FAST400, installed a
year or two ago, is the reason for the performance boost.  In the
customer's mind, the performance is severly degraded because of an
IBM-supplied PTF.  Does IBM *need* that kind of stress?

IBM *almost* has to issue a warning with whatever method they choose to
disable FAST400, should it come to that.  If the PTF *only* "fixes"
FAST400, then customers can decide for themselves.  If the PTF is a
HIPER for something that everyone has to apply and, oh by the way, also
"fixes" FAST400, well, there's not much one can do about that, is there?
And, IBM can shut this thing altogether in V5R2 and beyond.

So, Tiger Tools has offered to "return a fair portion of the price".
Who's version of "fair" applies?  By the time this episode plays out,
the incidental costs of having to deal with a disabled FAST400 may far
exceed anything you paid for it.  I agree with someone else who
mentioned that the IS manager who decides FAST400 is a good idea, needs
to get the blessings of an informed CEO or other higher authority.

What a fascinating discussion.  I have thoroughly enjoyed it.

Dan Bale
IT - AS/400
Handleman Company
248-362-4400  Ext. 4952
D.Bale@Handleman.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Pluta [SMTP:joepluta@PlutaBrothers.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 9:33 AM
> To:   mi400@midrange.com
> Subject:      RE: [MI400] How does this software work??
>
> I just had a frightening thought... what if a PTF didn't add a new
> flag, but
> instead it REVERSED the polarity of the flag?  Now Fast400 will mark
> every
> job as interactive, thereby becoming Slow400!
>
> Yipes.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Pluta
> >
> > Oh well, neither here nor there.  If IBM wants to fight this,
> > they can do it
> > with a PTF that simply adds a new 5250 flag.  Once they do that,
> then it's
> > the IS manager's responsibility of dealing with which PTF will break
> which
> > version of Fast400.