On 2019-12-01, at 10:56:17, Ed Jaffe wrote: > > I asked IBM about this pre-GA and was told that the doc was *deliberately* > left out of PoOp because there were not yet any exploiters! WTF? How can > anyone exploit something that isn't documented? My "push back" on that was > left unanswered... :-\ > > Thinking it through on my own, I came to realize IBM has deliberately decided > *NOT* to give SYNCSORT an opportunity to exploit this performance enhancement > before they get around to doing so in DFSORT. So, in answer to my original > question, they should have said there were not yet any *IBM* exploiters... > This is not unprecedented behavior of IBM's. IIRC, STP and ICSF have each been mentioned in the PoOp, temporarily with a single sentence stating something such as "... not further described here."
What if someone wants to buy(?) a bare-metal z15 and write his own OS? I can envision a few organizations that would want those terms, paying for the otherwise restricted documentation, and, in turn, would not tell you, me, or IBM what they want it for. But there are non-z IBM products that fit such niches better (and are more heavily advertised on TV.) Linux? Does that require some unocumented drivers from IBM? OpenSolaris for z in its brief existence ran only under VM. Hercules? z390? (Never mind.) -- gil
