It is not that it has not been changed fast enough, it is that it was overlooked when changes were being made. Please, let's not get back to the BAD vs. WAD wars from days of the conversion from 370 to XA. This is no different than that. Nobody said it was a new CP "thingie". To the contrary, it is simply something overlooked that should be fixed. If that fix must be made at a release level, so be it.
Look at it from a customer's point of view. There are those who may never have occasion to encounter the problem of this particular design "feature". They could not care less. Then there are those who do not think they will be able to make it through next year if that "feature" has not been fixed. We happen to fall into the latter of the two categories. To us, it is definitely a flaw, not a feature. Regards, Richard Schuh > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Richard Corak > Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:47 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Rumors of the next z/VM? > > > >A poorly conceived design is, itself, a bug. If you don't > accept that, = > >consider Windoze. Also, I would consider an artificial > constraint where = > >none is needed to be a flaw; hence,a bug. I can remember > when many BAD = > >(broken as designed) things were dismissed as WAD (Working > As Designed), = > >which is another way of saying, "That's simply the design of CP." I = > >thought we were beyond that.=20 > > I hardly think that in the 64-bit world some new CP "thingie" > was designed to be restricted to the 31-bit world. CP was > designed when all that existed was 31-bit addressing. Claiming > that design is now broken 'cause it hasn't been changed fast > enough to be 64-bit everywhere is just not reasonable. IMO. > > Richard Corak >
