In a message dated 1/28/2007 10:03:47 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
world becomes more security conscious. How is IBM to know that there are no security exposures in the implementation unless they certify each implementation and any patches to that implementation - an expensive business? >> Support too! Back in the olden days we had a site that was 1/3 IBM, 1/3 Amdahl and 1/3 Hitachi. It got so bad the IBM SE's and PSR's wouldn't look at a dump unless it was produced on IBM machine and printed on DCI connected printer. Also in the early days of XA and ESP's we'd get a vendor who usually would have to make minor changes and pack their bags headed for FACOM sites to see if it would run on them. As others had mentioned reverse engineering worked most of the time, but when it didn't GTF was a rough sled. And according to others, timing problems wouldn't even show up in PER mode. So you'd run and trace and it wouldn't fail, turn it off and would fail immediately. At the speeds and complexity of Z architecture I could foresee an entire department dedicated to compatibility/conformance for OEM badging. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
