>Why was a new PTF released to the public with so many "known" problems
>and bugs. I thought that these releases are supposed to be tested
>before release. Nobody even took a look at the dsmsched.log to see
>that it was putting in blank lines during testing?
>The extra lines are a problem in the Unix versions also.
>Are we the beta testers? I'd actually expect this kinda thing from
>Microsoft before IBM.
>
>Brian Rowan
>Dec Consultant for Compaq Services

Brian's frustration is one that many of us share.  We systems people look
at the defects which end up in formal maintenance levels and shake our
heads in dismay.  So many of the problems have such obvious manifestations
that we have to conclude that there is no rigorous testing suite as there
should be.  We as customers are getting the impression that testing of
ADSM code occurs in an ad hoc manner, as individuals think of various
things to try.  The result is defects making it out which range from the
annoying ("..." not working in excludes) to the disastrous (small file
aggregation data loss).

ADSM is supposed to be a flagship, enterprise product whose quality should
not have to be questioned, particularly by large businesses with huge
investments in the data they entrust to this product.  But from what we're
seeing in chronic programming errors making it to market, we do feel like
beta testers.  IBM certainly can and should be doing better.

    Richard Sims, Boston University OIT (and former corporate systems 
programmer)