I still stand by what i previously said. since IBM did SSL support
for TCPIP on z/OS, IBM should do it for TCPIP on z/VM.
Why cheat on system of the same support. This is not like we are
asking for something new to TCPIP on VM. IBM did it once, now do it
again. Since it was already done once, it should not cost that much
more to do the right thing by making it available native (without
necessity of linux) on VM. The VM customers should not be having to
ask for it to be done.
C'mon IBM!
At 10:24 AM 11/11/2005, you wrote:
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
