Isn't that a bit of a red herring? I may have missed something earlier,
but why couldn't the effort that went in to writing it in the linux
environment been spent on a native implementation instead?
Paul Goodwin
Dave Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are.com> To
Sent by: VM/ESA [email protected]
and z/VM cc
Discussions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject
.UARK.EDU> Re: SSL connection to VM
11/11/2005 10:24
AM
Please respond to
VM/ESA and z/VM
Discussions
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.UARK.EDU>
I don't think that there are any technical reasons (at least that I am
aware of) why a "native" (non-Linux based) SSL server and services
couldn't be done for VM. I think it's just an issue of finding the
person-power (and that means the $$$) to do it. And we're aways asking
IBM for a lot of other cool neat things for VM too.
It's really a matter of proper resource allocation.....
Duane wrote:
> At 09:42 AM 11/11/2005, you wrote:
>
>> I think saying that IBM doesn't supply SSL support on z/VM is going a
>> bit too far. They do supply SSL support, but in "powdered" form - you
>> have to add "water", i.e. a Linux system. Well, maybe it's more like
>> adding milk, because it's not completely trivial.
>
> I expect IBM to give VM the same SSL support that z/OS has, no less.
> More importantly, without the necessity of Linux.
> If SSL support can be done for TCPIP on z/OS, then surely it can be done
> for TCPIP on VM.
--
Dave Jones
V/Soft Software, Inc.
Houston
281.578.7544
