× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Rob,

At 4:38 PM -0500 4/8/99, Rob Berendt wrote:
>Have you been on this list for the last 30 days or more?  There have been
>numerous
>emails about the benefits of upgrading from level 10 to level 20.  There
>have been
>many more emails about the jump from 20 to 30.  Beyond that is a little
>less clear.
>
>What I am saying next may sound negative, but I really want to put it in a
>positive
>light.  Are you truly open to change?  Or are you trying to justify and
>explain as
>to why you'll stay at level 10, regardless?  Because if so, I don't want
>to waste
>time trying to explain if we are already diametrically opposed.  I don't
>want this
>to turn into a cycle vs. noncycle programming debate where neither side
>cares what
>the other side is saying.

   I've been on this list since shortly after it started.  I'm fully aware
of what the different security levels allow.

   The purpose of my message was not to advocate any specific security
level, but to comment on IBM's policy of removing a feature, ostensibly for
my own "protection".

   Your position is obviously that Level 10 is never appropriate, since you
support it's removal.  My position is that you have no idea what is
appropriate for my business.  I certainly would not support the removal of
system values just because *I* don't use them.  If I did, we could remove
well over half of them.

   As far as being open to change, I welcome change when it has the
potential for being a benefit.  I oppose changes that are made just for
sake of change.  That just costs me money.  I can guarantee you that a
higher level security would bring us no benefit.  No, it wouldn't be a HUGE
burden for us to enter passwords, just another small pain that we don't
have to put up with on any of our other platforms.

   Yes, I'm on the "wrong" side of the cycle debate, too.  Maybe IBM should
remove the cycle code from RPG, so it will be more "efficient" for the
"structured" code camp.

   Regards,

   - Lou Forlini
     Software Engineer
     System Support Products, Inc.
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.