I for one think z/VM developement does a very good job. If anyone doubts that just think where VM would be if developement was turned over to the guys that do VSE CICS. The phrase 'MIDDLE AGES' comes to mind.
Although I do think that sometimes they get a little case of 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' syndrome. Back to SHUTDOWN. In this case almost all of the code already exists, i.e. FORCE, SHUTDOWN, and a new one FOR (FOR RSCS CMD LOGOFF ?? SHUTTRAP is available (although some shops can't use it because it is 'non-standard' software). The conversation here, I think, is to improve the SHUTDOWN process with more standardization and control. Although it may be perfectly OK to FORCE RSCS or TCPIP I'd prefer not to allow anyone except a very select few, to be able to FORCE VSE or zOS. I think there were some very good ideas presented here and they shouldn't be just brushed away. .... Will RACF ever become a nocharge option??? .... -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Changing privclass of SHUTDOWN On Wednesday, 11/07/2007 at 05:02 EST, Tom Duerbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But that is the problem with development folks. They sit on the same machine, > day after day, year after year and think all the "user add ons" is a one time > thing. The user add ons seem to take more time putting on a VM system then the > install of VM! Ahem. You must be talking about generic brand "development folks". z/VM Development does not sit on the same machine day after day, year after year, nor do we think post-installation customization is a one-time thing. When we upgrade the software or the hardware, we, like many others, inevitably forget to enable/set something. Our primary VM system is actually a production system since our mission is to product development, but it runs a development version of z/VM once it has stabilized sufficiently to do so. And if you like, we can add artificial delays into the install process so that it takes longer. :-) What you describe is a Good Thing! You *should* spend more time on the things that increase the value of the system than on the system itself. I'm not clear on why it's a bad thing that the install process be such a small part of the migration effort. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott __________________________________________________________________ << ella for Spam Control >> has removed VSE-List messages and set aside VM-List for me You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
