On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:14:16 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>On Wednesday, 08/20/2008 at 12:50 EDT, Rob van der Heij ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED] m> >wrote: >> >> > Ah, one of the Great Schisms. See the 3rd from the last paragraph i n >the >> > description of *MSG in the CP Programming Services book: >> >> What troubles me is that the folks in IBM who push the new automated >> operator product seem to have missed this part of their education. >> Apparently the documentation suggests that you can simply set secuser >> all over the place to manage virtual machines. And as we know this >> breaks the ability for the victim to process *MSG. > >I'll have to let someone who has factual knowledge of the product answer >that question. >Alan Altmark >z/VM Development >IBM Endicott >======================== ========================= ======================== Well, without saying my name, I suspect Alan was pointing in my direction . Bruce's later post is correct. Every place we mention SECUSER in the Adm in Guide for Operations Manager for z/VM, we also mention OBSERVER. It's yo ur choice. And although I'll give customers info in presentations or in e- mails on the pros and cons of each, it's not our place to talk about the differences between the two - they're CP functions and you should refer t o the CP manuals for info on them, which is exactly what the Operations Manager book does. If the pros and cons aren't clear in the CP manuals, then let Endicott know. Operations Manager isn't the only application using these functions so you shouldn't have to look in its books to understand them. (I'm - trying to be - on vacation, so excuse the attitude ...) Tracy Dean, IBM
