So far, I haven't had any major issues with 4.2.3.0 on Win2k. Over the next couple weeks, I'll be putting other platforms (AIX, HP-UX) to the same version. I'll let you know how it goes.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:msimpson@;UKY.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 15:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: TSM reliability At 13:08 -0600 11/1/02, Tab Trepagnier wrote: >I understand what you're saying and largely agree. But in TSM's case that >would be the x.x.0.0 release. And history has shown those to be pretty >much uniformly bad. > >It's the reported poor quality of the maintenance releases intended to fix >THOSE problems - the x.x.x.0 releases - that are the real shame. I guess the solution is to avoid any release with a dot in it. Ten days ago, we asked IBM for a recommendation on which release we should upgrade to, since it seems to be universally agreed that our 4.2.2.0 is not a good place to be. So far, they haven't been able to recommend a good release. -- Matt Simpson -- OS/390 Support 219 McVey Hall -- (859) 257-2900 x300 University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 <mailto:msimpson@;uky.edu> mainframe -- An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge obsolete profits for their obsolete shareholders. And this year's run twice as fast as last year's.
