McKown, John wrote:
The only reason that I can think of to tell anybody anything under an
NDA is so that they have time to write nice things about on day one. It
takes time to read the stuff, think about it, then write (hopefully)
glowing prose about it.
Some people might actually need to
No matter the reason, anyone involved would undoubtedly be subject to the
terms of an NDA.
Which is why I'm surprised this topic even came up on IBM-Main.
How could anybody even ask a question such as this, under usual terms of an NDA.
1. Nobody under NDA could admit it.
2. Nobody else could
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
No matter the reason, anyone involved would undoubtedly be subject to the terms
of an NDA.
Which is why I'm surprised this topic even came up on IBM-Main.
How could anybody even ask a question such as this, under usual terms of an NDA.
1. Nobody under NDA could admit
I suspect it is due to a lack of communication between management and
employees coupled with employees that are otherwise clueless about what
hardware is or is not currently available to the
public.
If this is the case, then it's inexcusable on both sides.
I don't know what penalties are in
Not necessarily so -- all NDAs are not created (or maintained) equally.
--
Tom Schmidt
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Not necessarily so -- all NDAs are not created (or maintained) equally.
This is so out of context!
What are you replying to?
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
No matter the reason, anyone involved would undoubtedly be subject to the terms
of an NDA.
Which is why I'm surprised this topic even came up on IBM-Main.
How could anybody even ask a question such as this, under usual terms of an NDA.
1. Nobody under NDA could admit it.
I did not sign up any NDA, my knowledge does not come from official
information from IBM. I don't know how it's regulated in Canada, but I'm
pretty sure, that in Poland I can share my knowledge despite of IBM statement.
Yes, you can.
It's when you sign an NDA that problems arise.
-
Too busy
the presentation labeled S2885BB - Tool Bag - orlando.pdf
See page 5.
Mark T. Regan, K8MTR
CTO1 USNR-Retired (1969-1991)
- Original Message
From: Tom Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:42:32 PM
Subject: Re: Z10 coupling link
On Wed
Of Kirk Talman
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:47 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Z10 coupling link
Are there two Z10's?
http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/966AE18147C20C8587256BF100
656F41/$file/U146Z10_ds.PDF
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 02/20
No, System z, z9 and the as of yet unannounced is spelled with a small
z, it's cooler!
Kirk Talman wrote:
Are there two Z10's?
http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/966AE18147C20C8587256BF100656F41/$file/U146Z10_ds.PDF
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on
Kirk Talman wrote:
Are there two Z10's?
http://www.hgst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/966AE18147C20C8587256BF100656F41/$file/U146Z10_ds.PDF
Huh?
This is link to disk drive description. It's *not* named z10. Only part
of the model contains 'z10' string.
BTW: there are many thing with z10 in
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:04:19 -0600, Paul Meier wrote:
Does anyone have any idea how to circumvent the problem with connecting
the
current coupling links from a z900 STI to the new z10 infiniBand link? OR
have an idea how to integrate the two? The problem is coupling a z900 to a
new z10.
You
Just what I heard.
On 2/20/08, McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Meier
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:04 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Z10 coupling link
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Paul Meier
Does anyone have any idea how to circumvent the problem with
connecting the current coupling links from a z900 STI to the
new z10 infiniBand link? OR have an idea how to integrate the
two? The problem
Does anyone have any idea how to circumvent the problem with
connecting the
current coupling links from a z900 STI to the new z10
infiniBand link? OR
have an idea how to integrate the two?
Since the product hasn't been announced, yet, the only ones who would know are
those under NDA.
And, they
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Z10 coupling link
McKown, John wrote:
Has the z10 been announced? If not, then you may
It is not recommended to use so different machines (in term of CPU speed) in
sysplex. To much overhead.
Having monitored and measured this in real world environments since 1994, I
disagree.
Define too much, and produce documentation.
The biggest issue is lock elongation if you put a sharing
: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:42:32 PM
Subject: Re: Z10 coupling link
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:04:19 -0600, Paul Meier wrote:
Does anyone have any idea how to circumvent the problem with connecting
the
current coupling links from a z900 STI to the new z10 infiniBand link? OR
have an idea how
.
Mark T. Regan, K8MTR
CTO1 USNR-Retired (1969-1991)
- Original Message
From: Tom Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:42:32 PM
Subject: Re: Z10 coupling link
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:04:19 -0600, Paul Meier wrote:
Does anyone have any idea
20 matches
Mail list logo
