> O> I'd argue that you will have more problems trying to make this work > > reliably than just doing it the way I described. If you've got time to > > debug this and all the paths have equivalent permissions and usability > > characteristics, then yes, it's technically possible. You just have to > > have a lot of free time to figure out what happened when it doesn't > > work, and personally, I've got better things to do. > > The paths can be completely different, IP does not care.
Certainly. But you're going to spend a lot more time figuring out why it doesn't work when it doesn't. I can make it work -- been there, done that. I just have learned from bitter experience with similar setups that it's a rotten idea if you can avoid it, and it's usually not a good idea to design based on it. It's more trouble than it's worth for 99% of cases. If what you're after is that it can be made to work, then you are correct, it can work. Is it a good idea? I'd say no, and it definitely isn't a best practice. Too many opportunities for things and people to be confused, especially when there are ways easier to implement and maintain. > > > Sounds like a new added bug as you describe it. > > Not from a diagnostic standpoint. > Well if a stack prohibits valid configurations I'd call it words like > buggy or flawed, or if I'm trying to set up such a configuration "unfit > for purpose". We'll have to agree to disagree, then. While there are reasons for wanting to do this, there are alternative methods to accomplish the same effect that don't require this "feature" and that (at least IMHO) are simpler to understand and maintain. If I need to do this with one of the IBM stacks, I can always front-end the IBM stack with a Linux guest and not have to have further discussion about it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390