John/John, Yeppers, one has to be intelligent and open-minded to understand IT, it's people, equip etc. I keep thinking I am a odd duck, I grewup with IT since about age 5-6 , father working for Unisys.
I have similar situations when managers don't understand a Mainframe isn't a PC when writing code or doing a project... Scott On Monday, August 22, 2016, John McKown <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:48 AM, John Mattson <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > Perhaps the rush to eliminate mainframes is to eliminate the > embarrassment > > of having them not fail when most everything else does. > > > > > Most likely. I remember the mainframe being "stuck" with a severity 1 > incident report as being "unavailable for work". Why was it unavailable? > Because the LAN routers took a hit. When we complained that the problem was > not in the mainframe, we were told "It doesn't matter, the users couldn't > use it. The reason is irrelevant." Basically, the PWBs wanted to give the > impression "up stairs" that the mainframe was no more reliable than > anything else. > > > > -- > Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within. > > Maranatha! <>< > John McKown > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] <javascript:;> with the message: > INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
