ADSM-L

Re: Simple Question for Client Developers...

1998-08-20 08:48:52
Subject: Re: Simple Question for Client Developers...
From: Sheelagh Treweek <sheelagh.treweek AT COMPUTING-SERVICES.OXFORD.AC DOT UK>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:48:52 +0100
Here here.  I couldn't have put that better myself.  We have waited for 9
months since GA of V3 for a release that we considered fit to roll out to
our thousands of users.  PTF5 is not it, so we will stay with V2.

It really is quite disgraceful.  If there are such glaring problems at the
interface level, what might lie deeper?

Sheelagh
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheelagh Treweek                         Email: sheelagh.treweek AT oucs.ox.ac 
DOT uk
Sheelagh Treweek                         Email: sheelagh.treweek AT oucs.ox.ac 
DOT uk
Oxford University Computing Services     Tel:   +44 (0)1865 273205
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK     Fax:   +44 (0)1865 273275
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From owner-adsm-l AT vm.marist DOT edu  Thu Aug 20 13:19:00 1998
> From owner-adsm-l AT vm.marist DOT edu  Thu Aug 20 13:19:00 1998
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 08:12:31 -0400
> From: Richard Sims <rbs AT BU DOT EDU>
> Subject: Re: Simple Question for Client Developers...
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
>
> 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)
>
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>