3002 update breaks uucico

[Christian Motz]

In article <1001 at pan.UUCP> jw at pan.uu.ch (Jamie Watson) writes:
>
>IBM's idiotic non-notification policy has burned us again.
>
> [Boring description of uucico bug deleted]
>
>Here is the best part.  We called IBM to report the problem.  The answer
>we got, immediately, was "Oh, we know about that already."  Great.  Then
>why did we just have to spend half a day tracking this down, lose a day
>of processing on our customers' systems, and have to absorb a lot of
>abuse from our customers, over a problem that was already well known to
>IBM but they simply didn't bother to tell us about?

Well, I'm not really a big fan of IBM either. But this is the typical
kind of IBM bashing that even makes me mad. Listen, buddy, you get an
automatic update of your operating system every couple of weeks. Other
companies don't even give you a buglist in the same timeframe.

Above all, if you really need the information as fast as possible, you
can always get it online from DIAL IBM, where you can get the latest
information via direct access to the APAR database.

Sheesh! Me defending IBM! What will be next? Seriously, though, I think
IBM has done a pretty good job with the /6000. Surely there can be 
improvements, but this is something that can be said about any given
manufacturer.

Since I am posting anyway: Hey you guys at Austin, was the $%&@?*#
"objectrepository" really necessary? Couldn't you have put the 
information in plain ascii files? And, while we're at it, why are
commands like the "odme" so poorly documented? Inquiring minds
want to know ;-)

-- 
SOFTPRO doesn't speak for me, and I do not speak for SOFTPRO. So what?

                              Christian Motz, cmo at softpro.stgt.sub.org