On Tuesday, 02/03/2009 at 10:53 EST, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
Question:
Am I wrong?
Ask your wife. Only wives are authorized to make that call about their
husbands. But if you're not wrong about this, I'm sure you're wrong about
something else. Just ask. Trust me on
Slow day? Time to stir the sh... or still smarting from recent
experience?
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU wrote on
02/03/2009 10:17:36 AM:
On Tuesday, 02/03/2009 at 10:53 EST, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
Question:
Am I wrong?
Ask your wife.
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Philosophical question...
On Tuesday, 02/03/2009 at 10:53 EST, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
Question:
Am I wrong?
Ask your wife. Only wives are authorized to make that call about their
husbands
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
02/10/2009 12:47 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: [IBMVM] Philosophical question...
Chuckie,
Was that supposed to be funny? I'll have to ask my wife.
Sir Mike the Prestidigitator
AKA: Husband
Clearly, Chuckie traveled back in time to use your keyboard (again).
Alan Altmark wrote:
Did that just arrive on the listserver or something? Chuckie sent that a
week ago! (Cuz I just heard from Mike Harding, too.)
Regards,
Alan
Alan Altmark
Sr. Software Engineer
IBM z/VM
Deeper philosophical question:
If a man says something and there is no wife to hear him, is he still wrong?
-C-
On 2/3/09 18:17 Alan Altmark said:
On Tuesday, 02/03/2009 at 10:53 EST, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net
wrote:
Question:
Am I wrong?
Ask your wife. Only wives
PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophical question...
Deeper philosophical question:
If a man says something and there is no wife to hear him, is he
still wrong?
-C-
On 2/3/09 18:17 Alan Altmark said:
On Tuesday, 02/03/2009 at 10:53 EST, David Boyes
dbo...@sinenomine.net
Dear colleagues:
Your moderator simply must, from time to time, extol the virtue of an
on-topic discussion, while simultaneously objurgating the vice of
loosely-hanging, just-begging-to-be-snipped, dangling little off-topic
threads. I beseech each and every one of you to view this as a
It'd be much more interesting to me if this wasn't a philosophical
question, but a discussion of a specific vendor and product. The answers
might be different, too.
Right off hand, I'd say that I wouldn't want to do business with this
vendor. But I might change my mind if I knew more about
To take this a step further, what if the vendor has had notice from the
operating system vendor of the implementation of a new security feature, and
has not made their install compatible with that new security, and yet never
mentions the fact in the install documentation?
(IBM Read closely) We
] On Behalf Of Dave Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:24 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophical question...
I'd have to agree with the others on this issue.unless
the vendor can provide you with a clear and detail
explanation for why this must be so, then I'd say
-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On Behalf Of David Boyes
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 8:28 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophical question...
On 2/3/09 11:19 AM, Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com wrote:
Is this the vendor's long
Why would you even, for a second, doubt your sanity?
David Wakser
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of David Boyes
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:53 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Philosophical question
On 2/3/09 10:55 AM, Wakser, David david.wak...@infocrossing.com wrote:
Why would you even, for a second, doubt your sanity?
Vendor is trying to invoke ³not tested configuration² clauses and doing
other assorted whining to avoid providing a fix. I want to get a consensus
response from the
10:53
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Philosophical question...
Background:
Upgrading a system to current level. Have a vendor product that insists
on the installation of a backlevel component application that causes the
configuration and service management system to report errors
Absolutely not.
David Boyes wrote:
Background:
Upgrading a system to current level. Have a vendor product that insists
on the installation of a backlevel component application that causes the
configuration and service management system to report errors in the
configuration. Vendor insists
You're saying a vendor should update their product just to accommodate
service updates to some other critical portion of the infrastructure?
Come on, David... that's just crazy talk. ;-)
Bad Vendor. No biscuit!!!
-dan.
David Boyes wrote:
Background:
Upgrading a system to current level.
...@familydollar.com
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of David Boyes
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:53 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Philosophical question...
Background:
Upgrading a system
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
02/03/2009 09:53 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Philosophical question...
Background:
Upgrading a system to current level. Have a vendor product that insists on
the installation
David Boyes wrote:
On 2/3/09 10:55 AM, Wakser, David david.wak...@infocrossing.com wrote:
Why would you even, for a second, doubt your sanity?
Vendor is trying to invoke “not tested configuration” clauses and
doing other assorted whining to avoid providing a fix. I want to get a
z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Philosophical question...
Background:
Upgrading a system to current level. Have a vendor product that insists on
the installation of a backlevel component application that causes the
configuration
You are not wrong. The only way we could empathize with the 3rd party vendor
is if the back-level component is needed as a work-around for a defect or
design flaw in something external to their product, like the operating system.
David Boyes wrote:
Question:
I believe the maker of the
On 2/3/09 11:19 AM, Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com wrote:
Is this the vendor's long-term answer, requiring old code to support their
app?
Yes, or at least a modified code package that uses the same name as a
package supplied with the OS. They also recommend bypassing dependency
checking to
of JAVA.
Ed Martin
Aultman Health Foundation
330-588-4723
ext 40441
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
Behalf Of David Boyes
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:53 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Philosophical question...
Background:
Upgrading
M Martin
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 10:33 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Philosophical question...
Hello David Boyes,
I agree with you.
BUT.. (having said that) this sound like a NON-z/VSE, NON-z/VM system only.
And then only when the VENDOR will not
Certify
On 2/3/2009 at 10:53 AM, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net wrote:
Background:
Upgrading a system to current level. Have a vendor product that insists on
the installation of a backlevel component application that causes the
configuration and service management system to report errors in
On 2/3/2009 at 11:27 AM, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net wrote:
On 2/3/09 11:19 AM, Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com wrote:
-snip-
They also recommend bypassing dependency
checking to force installation of this package, which strikes me as flat out
wrong. What's the point of a software
On 2/3/09 11:57 AM, Mark Post mp...@novell.com wrote:
On 2/3/2009 at 11:27 AM, David Boyes dbo...@sinenomine.net wrote:
On 2/3/09 11:19 AM, Mike Walter mike.wal...@hewitt.com wrote:
-snip-
They also recommend bypassing dependency
checking to force installation of this package, which strikes
of Hewitt Associates.
Mark Post mp...@novell.com
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
02/03/2009 10:57 AM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Philosophical question...
On 2/3/2009
Background:
Upgrading a system to current level. Have a vendor product that insists on
the installation of a backlevel component application that causes the
configuration and service management system to report errors in the
configuration. Vendor insists that the backlevel component is the only
If they are not even willing to take a bug report and work towards a fix for
the future - then I'd assume the company is 'dead and hollow' and collecting
revenue for the last gasping breath of the product. I imagine an empty room
with the dusty desks where support staff once toiled.. and a
31 matches
Mail list logo
