Christoph's point is well taken: The best place for the code was to be
submitted for inclusion in the mainstream and subject to peer review. My
point is that I hadn't avoided that process but had been trying to work
with IBM (via SHARE and the Technical Steering Committee) to setup a
co-operative p
> I might have been a bit harsh in the last mails,
good start ...
> but
oops! "but" negates the previous statement. Perhaps "Sorry Neale, you're
code is not utter crap"
I've never looked at the code but have been using Neale's cpint for years
and it has always worked perfectly for me. Thanks for
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 04:24:44PM -0400, David Boyes wrote:
> There is something that needs to be discussed here, though. One of the
> observations early on in the project of bringing Linux to the mainframe was
> a perception that the IBM Germany folks tend to prefer to implement a
> solution with
I would strongly recommend running production Linux under VM as you have
more options to repair in case of problems. I am also thinking of
clustering. In this case z/VM would be a better environment.
I am fairly new to VM compared to many veterans here. I find more options
under VM than on bare met
