In
<of3704cbe6.221b8755-on48257afa.002a9c2b-48257afa.002b9...@sg.ibm.com>,
on 01/21/2013
at 03:55 PM, Timothy Sipples <[email protected]> said:
>I don't follow the logic.
The logic is that the incremental cost was less for VSE because part
of the work had been done decades earlier.
>The ease or difficulty of doing something is not
>measured when something isn't done.
I'm referring to the incremental cost, not the total cost.
>All we can logically conclude was that it was "easy enough" for IBM
>to add that support to DOS when it did.
No, we can logically conclude that the cost of adding SCSI support to
the later code base did not include the work that had already been
done for other reasons.
>It might indeed have been more difficult with MVS,
But even if it would have been easier for MVS, what is relevant is
that IBM didn't do so, so to add FCP SCSI support now IBM would have
to either add FBA support or limit SCP SCSI to, e.g., Unix file
systems.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
