[Info-vax] How to Avoid Old Software, Old Bugs?

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/13/19 3:11 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/13/2019 12:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Stephen Hoffman  <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...the usual and effectively-futile requests for re-debugging old and
>>> long fixed bugs rather than staying current,
>>
>> There are many popular systems where one has a choice between old bugs
>> that are fixed in newer releases, and new bugs that have been introduced
>> in newer releases.
> 
> There is the issue.  There is a lot to be said in favor of "if it ain't 
> broke, don't fix it".
> 
> As a developer, I'm running the latest from VSI.  The worst, and the 
> best, that can happen is I run into something and I report it to VSI.
> 
> However, a production system usually cannot afford to have problems. One 
> might attempt testing, but the real test of any such system is actually 
> using it.  So, it can be a bad decision, either way.
> 
> It's why someone was recently looking for a MiceoVAX 3100 Model 98. They 
> may have performed extensive testing and certification, and would really 
> rather not have to go through that procedure again if they can avoid it.
> 

It's also why, contrary to popular belief (or desire!), there is
still so much COBOL, Fortran, PL/I and even RPG programs still out
there in the production world.  It is also why the mainframe
companies like IBM and Unisys have maintained complete compatibility
with older systems.  Unisys still supports their original ACOB
compiler which is basically ANSI 1974 COBOL.  People like to say
"If it ain't broke don't fix it".  More accurate would be "If it
ain't broke, don't break it."

bill