RE: Warning - Firefox v4 not compatible with HMC 7.7.1

["Dennis Lovelady" <iseries@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> <snip> ... [W]hen a browser is upgraded and
> then directed to the same link which is accessing\performing the same
> un-upgraded code\actions that existed since before the browser was
> upgraded, then how would the fault be the unchanged versus the changed
> feature?  Why would IBM be expected to ensure that every browser
> upgrade
> was still properly rendering their code\output since a level already
> verified to be supported?

Here's one possibility:  A browser definitely identifies its version and so
on in the process of establishing the HTTP connection.  If (and this is
certainly a hypothetical, but ... if) the version identified sparks some
errant reaction by the server side, then yes, the server is absolutely at
fault.

Paradigms have changed.  One cannot assume that just because a browser
version is the only change, that the difficulty is absolutely the fault of
the browser.  The issue could be errant code that's been sitting like
tuberculosis in some corner just waiting for a certain victim to pass by.

Dennis Lovelady
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dennislovelady
--
CONGRESS.SYS corrupted.  Reboot Washington DC <Y/N>? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of CRPence
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 4:14 PM
> To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Warning - Firefox v4 not compatible with HMC 7.7.1
>
> On Fri 05-May-2011 12:24 , Bryce Martin wrote:
> > I think that it is ridiculous that IBM creates software that is
> > stomped by a browser upgrade.... even IE 8... which has been out
> > since when? March 19, 2009.  That is right... OVER 2 YEARS AGO!!!!!
> >
> > It's sloppy at best, but negligent of its customers and products at
> > worst. How do you not fix something browser based in over 2 years?
> > My mind boggles when I see this crap from them... they are better
> > than this, or at least they should be.  Thank goodness I don't need
> > to use an HMC, or might really be mad :D
>
>    As described... Seems to me that the browser would be considered to
> be the problem since their upgraded code is no longer able to process
> what apparently was being processed previously without any difficulty
> before the upgrade.?  That is to say, when a browser is upgraded and
> then directed to the same link which is accessing\performing the same
> un-upgraded code\actions that existed since before the browser was
> upgraded, then how would the fault be the unchanged versus the changed
> feature?  Why would IBM be expected to ensure that every browser
> upgrade
> was still properly rendering their code\output since a level already
> verified to be supported?  Should IBM ensure every release upgrade to a
> 5250 emulator should remain compatible with their previous version of
> that non-IBM 5250 emulator?
>
>    While I suggested Rob should get a DCR or APAR to track, that is
> only
> because the IBM response suggested they had submitted a "request to
> development to get this repaired".  I figured that response implied
> both
> that IBM admitted some culpability and that a resolution to the request
> could be tracked [since code changes would come only from one of those
> two features, both of which have tracking identifiers].
>
> Regards, Chuck
> --
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
> list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.