On Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:01:57 EDT, Paul Zarnowski <VKM AT CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL
DOT EDU> said:
>On Thu, 29 Jun 1995 08:40:32 CDT Ron Ritchey said:
>> When I talked to IBM they said that
>>Version 2 for VM wasn't a priority. What does that tell you when
>>the last access date problem is a high priority?
>I wouldn't read too much into this. I believe the server and client
>developer teams are separate, and probably each have their own priority
>lists.
That's true. But, any users involved in TCP/IP development from the early
days couldda seen this one coming down Main Street from 10 miles off...
Call me cynical, but I've given up hope of VM TCP/IP ever catching up with
MVS TCP/IP... And I won't be surprised if there's a lesson there for how
it's going to be with ADSM...
It's really too bad IBM seems to have the attitude they do... But I don't
see it changing in the near future... If you've got a production role for
VM ADSM, all I can say is: Good luck...
Bill
|