RE: This way or that?

Amen! After arriving at my current position a year ago, my first challenge
was to upgrade from very old dumb terminals to Client Access. What I found
was a auditing nightmare. All auditing revolved around workstation ids.
Subsystems were hardcoded to run certain jobs from certain terminals. CA/400
would not track using the same old terminal IDs, and people panicked when
they realized that the corporate office could not track what was going on
300 miles away. They were astonished that people would share terminals
(auditing reasons). I have changed these procedures to use user ids, but it
was a nightmare.

My suggestion: let the operating system manage your system whenever
possible.

Patrick



> Too much M.I.S. personnel intervention for my taste.  If your data entry
> users are only allowed one signon session, why not use their user ID
> instead
> of the device ID?  You avoid both aforementioned problems.  I will admit
> to
> not having done data entry apps since several years ago, so I may be
> forgetting some of _valid_ reasons for using device IDs.  I just remember
> all too well the problems we had using them.
> 
> - Dan Bale
> 
+---
| 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
+---