> > z/OS doesn't run because it deliberately issues an instruction subcode > > that is not implemented on an IFL and then craters in a specified way > > when the instruction fails. > One might infer from your characterization that z/OS added code to > intentionally crater itself on an IFL, and that would be incorrect.
One might also infer that vi is somehow superior to emacs, or that tomatoes are vegetables. It issues the instruction and dies in the way specified for such things to die. Is that better? (*grumble* smart-ass CGI movie doll... grumble)
