> Watch your language ;-) Sorry, too much feeling at seeing what is (to me at least) a doubtfull approach.
> you read the APAR text (and probably the source >update of the PTF where possible) and make your own assessment. Quite, and I hope everybody would do the same. But you are probably right, and not everybody is. In that case you shouldn't be running a zSeries in my opinion. >Most likely the contract will also have some statements about scheduled >outages, so >they may not even be able to meet that target. The contract would probably specify no outages, unless planned months (years?) before. That is the whole point of running a zSeries, no outages period. So if you are specifying the need to apply fixes within .... (pick your timeframe) you defeat the whole purpose of having a zSeries in my opinion. >The larger the shop, the less likely a pragmatic approach will win over a >formal or >systematic one. In my previous life it was very rare to have "pending >service" that would automatically become active after an unscheduled >outage (and such an approach would need additional approvals for sure). I see your formal point. But having taken an unwanted, unscheduled outage due to a software error, you might as well fix it then. Instead of waiting for it to hit you again before the next planned outage. Your customer for sure won't like being hit again. Best regards, Pieter Harder [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +31-73-6837133 / +31-6-47272537 Brabant Water N.V. Postbus 1068 5200 BC 's-Hertogenbosch http://www.brabantwater.nl Handelsregister: 16005077 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
