From: "Ronnie T. Mungo, Boy Genius" 

My iSeries Programming Manager tells me we have several products we use
that install objects to those libraries. It isn't an issue of the staff's
programmers only- just as it isn't an issue of a consumer putting programs
in \WINDOWS. These objects are in QSYS all by their lonesome. We have
complaints lodged with the software houses. He tells me these are not
unusual, though they are not common either.

The point is that it is not a situation unique to Microsoft, nor IBM, and
the slings and arrows thrown at MS are not necessarily fully fair.

RTM, BG


"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:3dfe060f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >   Easier how?
>
> I have MUCH more information about running jobs and paths than anything
> available in the Windows world.
>
> >Because there is so little software for OS/400 in comparison or that you
> are much more careful about what you install then many PC users?<
>
> Nice try at in insult, but no, that's not the reason.
>
> >   Maybe you mean that no programmer writing for OS/400 would ever make a
> mistake
>
> Definitely not, we're as human as anyone else.
>
> >introduce a compatibility issue in an updated version of any software
> component?
>
> It just doesn't usally happen between different apps, but sure an update
to
> an app can break itself. OS changes can break break things of course, but
> it's certainly not anything like DLL hell.
>
> >Can you confirm that neither IBM nor anyone else has ever released a fix
> for a compatibility problem?<
>
> Not even close, IBM's always fixing "compatibility
problems", as are a lot
> of lower level utility vendors.  It's just easier for an AS/400 admin to
> figure out just where a problem is occuring and to backlevel things if
> needed.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
>
> "Rich"  wrote in message news:3dfdfe1a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>    Easier how?  Because there is so little software for OS/400 in
comparison
> or that you are much more careful about what you install then many PC user
s?
>
>    Maybe you mean that no programmer writing for OS/400 would ever make a
> mistake and introduce a compatibility issue in an updated version of any
> software component?  Can you confirm that neither IBM nor anyone else has
> ever released a fix for a compatibility problem?
>
> Rich
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:3dfde800$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > My iSeries guys tell me it is possible to have files places in QSYS and
> QGPL
> > and have them replaced and overwritten in OS/400 as welll. Customized
> > objects are not secure there either.
>
> They are absolutely correct (assuming one as unlimited access to
everything
> which isn't all that common), but where things differ is that it's MUCH
> easier to control where every job/program gets its shared stuff, not to
> mention it's MUCH easier to track down such problems.
>
> There's also a big difference in the way AS/400 programmers treat things
> like this -- I'd have a programmer basically fired if he were to be
messing
> around with QSYS and other IBM specific libraries -- there's no reason to
do
> it as there's a perfectly acceptable way of doing anything you need
without
> messing with IBM stuff.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
> "Ronnie T. Mungo, Boy Genius"  wrote
in message
> news:3dfde54e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > My iSeries guys tell me it is possible to have files places in QSYS and
> QGPL
> > and have them replaced and overwritten in OS/400 as welll. Customized
> > objects are not secure there either.
> >
> > RTM, BG
> >
> >
> > "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> > news:3dfb50ff{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > If the operating system had been designed so that
applications could
> > > > not put their DLLs any place they desired, DLL hell
would not be a
> > > > problem.
> > >
> > > Definitely right.
> > >
> > > > But that requires software that is architected and designed.
> > > > Unfortuantely, with Windows, we have software that
"happened".
> > >
> > > A lot of it, yes, and that's where all the problems come from...
> > >
> > > - Bob Comer
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
> > > news:m1jmvuki2dbqh0v7dru0rf684ea5ulfg54{at}4ax.com...
> > > >
> > > > If the operating system had been designed so that
applications could
> > > > not put their DLLs any place they desired, DLL hell
would not be a
> > > > problem.
> > > >
> > > > But that requires software that is architected and designed.
> > > > Unfortuantely, with Windows, we have software that
"happened".
> > > >
> > > >  /m
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 13 Dec 2002 10:22:47 -0500, "Robert Comer"
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> It isn't just Microsoft's issue.
> > > > >
> > > > >No it's not, but they were the ones that designed
it so that dll
hell
> > was
> > > > >possible.
> > > > >
> > > > >- Bob Comer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Ronnie T. Mungo, Boy Genius"
 wrote in message
> > > > >news:3df9f505$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > >> Who got you there? Any combination of software
vendors not
limited
> to
> > > just
> > > > >> Microsoft.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Include IBM, Borland, and anyone else that
comes into the mix.
All
> > > those
> > > > >> install programs that let developers put DLLs in place
willy-nilly
> > > without
> > > > >> verification.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It isn't just Microsoft's issue.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> RTM, BG
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Richard B."
 wrote in message
> > > > >> news:vtchvuck9t9q0t6p87k3lpmg2b4tcg4e3a{at}4ax.com...
> > > > >> > So this is what VisualStudio.net promises
in their ad?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Who got you there in the first place?
LMAO, I had no idea the
DNC
> > ran
> > > > >> > MS!
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > - Richard
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4