RE: How to move forward -- MIDRANGE-L

> From: Tom Liotta
> >
> >Hmm.  This is a pretty specific attack on my product,
> 
> Hmm, Joe, I feel I should suggest that your sensitivity regulator is a
> touch off center.

This sort of statement is totally unnecessary.  I simply replied to your
statement, and pointed out the flaws in your reasoning.


> it most
> certainly was not an "attack". To state that is was and to attribute
such
> an attack to me is essentialy an attack against me.

You stated that my product is supported like an as-is product from
Norway; I'm surprised you didn't expect it to be characterized as an
attack.


> The two statements were included in order to provide a context for
> discussion. I expected you to understand the need for a context. And I
> expected discussion, for the sake of the thread, not diatribe. By
> providing specific examples, others may recognize that you and I both
have
> a stake.

You are saying that somehow third party as-is products are more reliable
and/or better supported than commercial products, and that somehow IBM
will support them better.  There is no "stake" here, and my statement
was not a diatribe.  You're simply wrong.


> In any case, you seemed to gloss over the fundamental difference that
I
> pointed out. Python in particular comes with source code available. I
know
> that PowerTech source is not included with the product; perhaps that's
not
> true in your case.

Who cares?  If my stuff breaks, you call your PSC/400 representative.
They will react faster than an email to Per Gummedal.  Perhaps that's
not true for PowerTech, I don't know.


> Because a customer may compile Python and run it, numerous potential
> problems are possibly resolvable via standard IBM support. It
certainly
> wouldn't be the first time that an application highlighted a problem
that
> IBM eventually PTF'd or that IBM support recommended an existing PTF
for.

This has nothing to do with the issue.  If Python doesn't run as
advertised, you either debug it yourself or email Norway.  If it doesn't
work, it is an application error and you the end user are required to
fix it, not IBM.  Whereas IBM is obligated to fix a problem in RPG or
WebSphere, and I am obligated to fix problems with my product.  I don't
know about PowerTech, but we're funny that away.  That's one reason why
we have no outstanding bugs.
 

> And IBM will even provide application support though not without
> additional cost. Of course, IBM support comes at a price even for
their
> own products.

I have never paid to have an RPG error fixed.


> Given that Python has source available and that it's a programming
> language and that the particular flavor of Python that was referenced
is
> intended for iSeries systems, I hardly think it's beyond reason that
it
> would be downloaded, installed, used and possibly even maintained by
> iSeries programmers. Given that, I don't see that IBM support would be
any
> different than it would for any other application environment. At
least,
> it never has been for any similar situation I've been in.

I don't even fully understand this statement, since I don't know what an
"application environment" is, but it is certainly beyond reason to think
that IBM would provide the same support for some third-party product you
installed, as they would provide for RPG or WebSphere errors, or the
support I would provide for my product.  If you find flaws in PSC/400
code, we fix them and we don't charge you for it.  IBM wno't charge you
for errors in the RPG runtime.  IBM will charge you to fix flaws in Per
Gummedal's Python runtime.

I don't know how much PowerTech charges customers when they find bugs in
PowerTech code.  Until this point, I had assumed nothing, but perhaps
I'm wrong.


> At times, I've shipped my own source to IBM to compile and test so
they
> could replicate a problem. I see no reason why I couldn't do the same
with
> a Python module.

Only if it uncovers a problem in the IBM runtime.  If it's a problem in
the Python runtime not related to a compiler or OS problem, they're
simply going to tell you to fix it yourself.


> Aside from that, if you choose to view anything in my previous reply
as an
> "attack", there's not much I can do about it. Your views are personal.
But
> I'd certainly appreciate if you wouldn't publicly make such an
> association.

It's not an association, or an implication, or even an insinuation; it's
a statement.  If you continue to assert that the support for my product
is only as good as the support for an as-is product from Norway, I will
consider it an attack, and a libelous one at that.

Good grief.

Joe