>Argh.... As a co-worker commented to me, IBM seems to be trying >to get us off VM even faster than the local anti-mainframe >lobby.
And somebody just recently asked why would IBM upset an entire user group? T'was ever thus ... Regards, Bill Stephens Sr. Technology Analyst, High Availability SunGard Availability Services 10th floor 401 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19108 Phone: (215) 351-1099 Fax: (215) 451-2045 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________ Keeping People and Information Connected (TM) http://www.availability.sungard.com Jack Woehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: VM/ESA To and z/VM [email protected] Discussions cc <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .UARK.EDU> Subject Re: another withdrawn product 12/19/2005 04:29 PM Please respond to VM/ESA and z/VM Discussions <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .UARK.EDU> Shimon Lebowitz wrote: > >Argh.... As a co-worker commented to me, IBM seems to be trying >to get us off VM even faster than the local anti-mainframe >lobby. > > Isn't that indeed the announced intent? That everyone should be logging into z/OS and VM just be a PROM monitor? I thought that was established IBM direction. -- Jack J. Woehr # "I never played fast and loose with the PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402 # Constitution. Never did and never will." http://www.well.com/~jax # - Harry S Truman
