Wouldn't it be 'nice' if things like that were 'available' to the rest of the community. 'Unsupported' is fine just put out a disclaimer 'Use at Your Own Risk' and put them on a download page... ????
-----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:07 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: DDR'ing 3390 DASD To Remote Location On Wednesday, 06/18/2008 at 01:01 EDT, "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If this is like some things in z/OS, the response from IBM development > will be along the lines of: "It is not documented because we don't want > anyone else to use it. We don't want others to use it because if they > do, then we must support it. And if we support it, then we cannot make > arbitrary changes to it to implement what we want, should __our__ needs > change." That's pretty much it, yes. We wrote an internal utility that let's us do FTP installs of z/VM; a very specific function for a very specific kind of data. We test that it works for our purposes. We don't verify that it will work for *any* purpose. Ergo we don't document it and any use of it in any other context is unsupported. That is, we won't accept APARs on it unless you can't install z/VM using it and we won't feel the slightest bit of guilt if we change how it works, the inputs, the outputs, the format, or delete it altogether. Making something generally useful and supported is far more expensive that just documenting things. We had business justification to provide a way to do an FTP install. We didn't have a justification to introduce a general-purpose "remote ddr" function. If the difference between "supported" and "unsupported" was just an hour's worth of work, there's be a LOT more things in VM. They might not work very well, but at least there'd be a lot of 'em! I think country music artist Garth Brooks said it best: "Thank God for unanswered prayers." Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
