The SyzMPF/z product we market has those same capabilities and (not just because we market the product) I think it's better to allow individual sites to decide on an individual basis what they want done with messages than to change the entire default behavior.
Creating a new function or adding a new type of behavior is a great idea, to change the "default" is a bad idea. I realize that it is looked at as a default because of some past negligence, but it's a "default" none-the-less. The whole concept of "default behavior" changes when you start changing the "defaults". I don't think it stagnates a product to establish and adhere to certain default behavior. I think it's a sign of a great product to stick to the rules and not change the rules because it might suit you at that period in time. What would keep IBM from deciding next year that it has another better idea on what the default should be? Personally I have used seemingly trivial Syslog entries to debug and correct issues that would have been difficult or next to impossible to do in a timely manner without them. I don't think making a no-log default is ever a good idea. Just my $.02 Brian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
