On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:03:58 -0700, Ted MacNEIL <eamacn...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>Keep an open mind and use your imagination a little, your point of view >isn't the only correct one. > >Please don't attribute motivations that aren't there. >I was asking a question and pointing out what may have been a flaw in reasoning. >This has nothing to do with a point of view. > >I still don't understand the need to protect commands, when the resources are protected. >Same question as others have. >Still no answer. I'll try one last time. No one seems to know why for sure, but possible explanations have been discussed. Data set protection alone isn't granular enough. It's all or nothing for update access and this change allows more granular control. Pretty simple concept. We can't force you to understand if you don't. -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:mzel...@flash.net Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
