On Mon, 27 May 2019 16:05:33 +0000, Bill Johnson wrote: >Mainframes are by design far more secure. For good reason. The exposure >is catastrophic potentially. It’s one of the main reasons why banks rely and >stay on it and spend tens of millions for it. I’ve already provided numerous >links referencing it.
You have provided pitifully little to support your claim that the security of mainframes is the reason banks and others stay with them. I have read all of the references that you posted, and most of them list the POTENTIAL to secure them as ONE of the reasons why people use mainframes for mission-critical data, but not the main reason. You have over-stated your case. >Add in my criminal justice knowledge along with my computer science >degree and 40 years of experience in IT and security. But don’t let me >dispel your beliefs. So I shoulodn't question you because you are the expert? I call BS. -- Tom Marchant > >Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > >On Monday, May 27, 2019, 11:45 AM, Chad Rikansrud ><mainfr...@bigendiansmalls.com> wrote: > >At the risk of re-kicking the already dead horse: Bill, you're comparing >apples and spiders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
