On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:57:17 -0500, Tom Marchant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:39:31 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe wrote: > >> >>... under no circumstances >>would ever have its product installed in with other products in the >>same CSI. > >Could you be a little more specific about what you mean by this? > >Are you referring to the target/DLIB zones or the global? > >What about multiple related products from the same vendor? I'm working in >software development now, but when I was a sys prog, I always found it >annoying when a vendor insisted that every product had to go in its own zone. >... Ed interpreted my statement correctly, but I thought I'd respond directly to your statement. To my "...under no circumstances ... same CSI." I should have added "and I'd seriously recommend we never look at this vendor again!" The product should be isolated in its own Global/target/DLIB zones ... and dumped in the trash. (Ok. There are maybe some exceptions, but don't tell the vendors.) I absolutely agree with your last statement. Certainly a shared GLOBAL zone. And I get irritated if I need more than one target and DLIB per vendor. I know, I know. Acquired products may have colliding DD statements (and I hate needing DD statements overriding DDDEFs almost as much as I hate multiple zones). It's because I agree with you last statement that I dislike and distrust an installation by restore. I hate the assumption that nothing belongs in the zone but the one pristine product. Target/DLIB - A restore of the zones makes me seriously grumpy. The GLOBAL zone? I'd go ballistic. Pat O'Keefe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
