On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:26:31 -0500, Ed Gould wrote: >John, > >Indeed there have been and like you said rejected. I am not sure >there was a reason for the rejection. If SHARE was doing their job >they should have sent it back requesting a reason, IMO. > >I think a well written request with a parmlib option might get >somewhere though. I will stand by my original guess is that IBM does >have a sound reason they just don't want to say. It my open an >integrity loophole (example only and a guess ONLY). Still, it would >have been nice *IF* that was the case to say so and I do think the >matter would be dropped.
Ed, I suspect that the reason for the rejected support was the fear that they would/could add an impediment to system growth (and an impediment to a mainframe sale). If they provided a function for single-system users that would (or even if it was only feared to be a "could") cause issues after the single-system was upgraded to a sysplex that would NOT be viewed as a "good thing" (tm) by IBM or customer management. As a customer that is referred to as "a career limiting move"... IBM has a similar term. IBM does not generally want to add a "feature" that is basically broken as designed (BAD). They do it sometimes but they really try hard to avoid it. (I am fairly certain this topic has been discussed to death here several years ago.) -- Tom Schmidt Madison, WI ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
