On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:48:13 +0200, R.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Phil Steele wrote: >[...] >> I always imagined that IBM's 'Licenced Internal Code' ( not to mentioned Graduated licnening charges, of course!) >> was a way to protect them from any one else being able to undo >>a 'Kneecapped' processor nowadays.
Perhaps... but there are people who take that as a challenge! This kind of thing will happen when Linux hackers get hold of mainframes ;-) >I heard about guys, who upgrade 9672 machines. They could enable >remaining CPs as well as memory. >There are customers who don't care, and probably it's not illegal in >some countries. I think I know the same people... I believe it's true, IBM no longer have a monopoly on enabling CPs etc. IBM hate it, but if the customer owns the hardware, there's not a lot they can do about it - so long as the customer pays the correct software charges of course... Similar scenario occured a couple of years ago on AS/400 with a product called 'Fast/400': http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh060302-story03.html Mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
