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