| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| WebSphere MQ for Linux - Automatic Startup (SupportPac MSL1) |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| zpat |
 Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
IBM's a software company and using github comes naturally.
Large long-term IBM customers are very different. They are just about comfortable with downloads from IBM, they are not from elsewhere, especially from public repositories.
This is actually perfectly understandable, when so much is at stake.
So, IBM, please keep downloadable tools under ibm.com somewhere.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
If an IBM customer is using open source *anywhere*, then getting stuff from github is the same.
Plus, source is available for things that did not have source available previously... even if it's embarrassing code like MS0S...
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Sorry, you are out of touch with the real world here.
We are allowed to download IBM distributed support pacs from an IBM web site, We trust IBM to have checked that they don't contain malicious code etc.
The company pays IBM many millions per year and they know (or hope) that IBM would never put that at risk. Of course there are disclaimers on support pacs like anything else.
These can't be updated by other customers willy-nilly - so they are not really open-source. Most like MS0P don't even have source code.
Github is not a suitable replacement means of obtaining such things because (regardless of the logic), IT security will not let us use it.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| zpat wrote: |
| Sorry, you are out of touch with the real world here. |
There's some debate as to whether I've ever been in it... 
| zpat wrote: |
| We are allowed to download IBM distributed support pacs from an IBM web site, We trust IBM to have checked that they don't contain malicious code etc. |
Category 3 supportPacs have never been warrantied by IBM - whether or not they included source. There's never been any guarantee that they did or did not contain malicious code.
| zpat wrote: |
| The company pays IBM many millions per year and they know (or hope) that IBM would never put that at risk. |
Then discuss this with IBM.
| zpat wrote: |
| Of course there are disclaimers on support pacs like anything else. |
And Cat 3 SupportPacs aren't supported by IBM, and Cat4 supportPacs aren't even written by IBM Employees.
| zpat wrote: |
| These can't be updated by other customers willy-nilly |
Category 4 can.
| zpat wrote: |
| so they are not really open-source |
If they include source, and a license that says they're open source, then they're open source. Where they come from, or what site the are downloaded from doesn't change that..
Saveqmgr and MA7K always included source. If the license had allowed customer redistribution, then they would have been opensource.
| zpat wrote: |
| Most like MS0P don't even have source code |
So MS0P isn't open source. MS0S didn't used to be.
| zpat wrote: |
| Github is not an suitable replacement means of obtaining such things because (regardless of the logic), IT security will not let us use it. |
That's a separate point, regardless of who wrote the software or what kind of license it has.
GitHub could easily host binaries that had no source with them, and a license that said they weren't opensource. That might not be allowed under github's policy, but that doesn't mean the capability isn't there.
Git/Github lets you see the full code, and every change made to it, and by whom.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
You don't seem to understand, the customer is always right.
What IBM have done, is moved from a distribution method that worked for us and other large customers, to one that doesn't.
Also - I don't want to compile source code. I don't even have a compiler.
Lastly, the new habit of the IIB toolkit fetching the IBM provided tutorials from GITHUB is very bad idea for the same reason. It won't be allowed.
Previously I could ask IIB developers to RTM, now they can't even see the manual.... 
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| zpat wrote: |
You don't seem to understand, the customer is always right.
What IBM have done, is moved from a distribution method that worked for us and other large customers, to one that doesn't.
Also - I don't want to compile source code. I don't even have a compiler.
Lastly, the new habit of the IIB toolkit fetching the IBM provided tutorials from GITHUB is very bad idea for the same reason. It won't be allowed.
Previously I could ask IIB developers to RTM, now they can't even see the manual.... |
I agree. They seem to have forgotten that many sites are isolated from the internet.
At one I know, accessing anything on GitHub/Sourceforge/wherever from within their network is a big NO-NO. In fact using anything from the internet is just not on unless it has been through the internal security screening process which when I was there (ok, some years ago) took 3-4 weeks at least.
At my last job, several of the sites were totally disconnected from the internet. How would I get access to the documentation.
Not all progress is good.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| zpat wrote: |
| You don't seem to understand, the customer is always right. |
I do understand that.
But every customer has a different idea of what works and doesn't work, and what's allowed and isn't allowed - i.e. what's "right".
supportPacs have always had risks. The fact that they were downloadable from www.ibm.com doesn't change that.
The IIB KC should be downloadable as a separate install, that can be run locally, without needing access to the internet. the samples/tutorials probably are - I haven't looked.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| zpat wrote: |
| Sorry, you are out of touch with the real world here |
Don't be too sure. The real world is not what it was a few years ago. The weather has turned decidedly cloudy for one thing...
| zpat wrote: |
| Lastly, the new habit of the IIB toolkit fetching the IBM provided tutorials from GITHUB is very bad idea for the same reason. It won't be allowed. |
At the risk of getting detention as well as an education, we use open source and public GitHub extensively, and we are a large US financial institution I'm forbidden to name in a public forum without the approval of our media relations people. But we're not some small organization with limited technical skills, we are security aware to the point of corporate paranoia (eliminating risk is part of the official mission statement) and despite the fact that the majority of staff are Americans, they're not bad chaps really.
Now that's not saying we pull down stuff with gay abandon; we have a vetting process for open source material that's not far removed from our vetting process for new vendors with an equivalent level of rigor. But my most worthy associate makes a valid point. Cat 3 & Cat 4 support pacs were always open source, they just date from a time before open source as a term was coined. They were never supported and had a level of quality because back in the day, only IBMers wrote them.
The times they are a' changing. Personally (and I can hear the brickbats being launched) I think it helps to have these constructs in GitHub; it encourages a wider constituency of authors to contribute and promotes good ideas being developed. It's much easier to get code onto GitHub than it was onto the IBM site, and I put it to you that it will be much more harshly critiqued by the general audience than it would be by a small group of IBM moderators.
| zpat wrote: |
| You don't seem to understand, the customer is always right |
Now really; we're both old enough to remember the days when the IBM rep would show up once a quarter to tell you what you were going to buy next for your mainframe. Don't sound astonished that this practice continues.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| zpat wrote: |
IBM's a software company and using github comes naturally.
Large long-term IBM customers are very different. They are just about comfortable with downloads from IBM, they are not from elsewhere, especially from public repositories.
This is actually perfectly understandable, when so much is at stake.
So, IBM, please keep downloadable tools under ibm.com somewhere. |
I admit I and my company culture may be old school in this regard.
My favorite support pack (after MO71) was WatchQ. Used it every day in the MQ 5.3 / 6.0 days. Stopped working at MQ 7. When the author updated it, it was a good day. Followed the link from a post on this fine site to download the new version and landed on some thing called git hub. Full stop and abort. Oh well.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Some major customers are conservative by nature and that's partly why they have kept IBM in business for 100 years (and long may it continue)...
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
I am still in the "market" for a neat MQ start up and shutdown script for Linux, that stops/starts all defined queue managers using the correct MQ version (if multiple exist) and does not assume default paths.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
