On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:44:44 -0300, Clark Morris wrote: >On 19 Apr 2014 08:00:49 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > >>No, IBM is not an ISV, as hopefully you know, Mr. Morris. >> >>Lately, I seem to have been casting myself in the role of a defender >>of IBM. That is not my wont, and IBM can anyway defend itself. I >>have, however, grown tired, very tired of cheap shots like this one. >>Easy to dismiss out of hand, they dilute the effects of responsible >>criticism. > >If RDz is the major GUI development environment by IBM equivalent to >the IDEs for other languages in other environments and COBOL is >considered a major language on z, then it is NOT a cheap shot to ask >if it is a responsible act for the IBM product RDz not to have day 1 >support for COBOL V5. I used the word vendor, not ISV. IBM is a >vendor and this illustrates the right hand not talking to the left >hand. > I believe it was I who introduced "ISV" into this thread, not calling IBM an ISV, but contrasting IBM's behavior in this matter with that of responsible ISVs such as Ed J. described. If you dislike the pejorative character of "cheap shot", call it an economical one.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
