On 5 Mar 2013 15:31:23 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 16:16:50 -0500, John Gilmore wrote: >> >>It does not much interest IBM's management, I suspect because it is >>not the focus of 'interesting' activity. Moreover, it is not a profit >>center. It generates no identifiable revenue stream; it is instead >>'given away' as a part of the operating system (which is of course >>paid for). >> >I had understood that, new with MVS/XA, HLASM was not "'given away' >as a part of the operating system", but a separately priced prerequisite. >Has that changed, or was I mistaken? > >TNLs? Did someone say it's harder to update electronic documentation >than hardcopy? Fairly long ago, I understood that in parts of the >aviation service industry mechanics were allowed to print hardcopies >of electronic manuals, but that it was a serious offense to retain them >beyond an explicit expiration date.
Should there be a SHARE requirement that all APARs that update documentation also cause an update to the related manuals? In these days of electronic documents, that should be relatively inexpensive and not cause a massive distribution of paper manuals. Those who are attending SHARE might want to consider it. > >-- gil > Clark Morris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
