So far, I haven't had any major issues with 4.2.3.0 on Win2k.  Over the
next couple weeks, I'll be putting other platforms (AIX, HP-UX) to the
same version.  I'll let you know how it goes.

-----Original Message-----
From: msimpson AT UKY DOT EDU [mailto:msimpson AT UKY DOT EDU]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 15:40
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: TSM reliability


At 13:08 -0600 11/1/02, Tab Trepagnier wrote:
>I understand what you're saying and largely agree.  But in TSM's case
that
>would be the x.x.0.0 release.  And history has shown those to be pretty
>much uniformly bad.
>
>It's the reported poor quality of the maintenance releases intended to
fix
>THOSE problems - the x.x.x.0 releases - that are the real shame.

I guess the solution is to avoid any release with a dot in it.

Ten days ago, we asked IBM for a recommendation on which release we
should upgrade to, since it seems to be universally agreed that our
4.2.2.0 is not a good place to be. So far, they haven't been able to
recommend a good release.
--


Matt Simpson --  OS/390 Support
219 McVey Hall  -- (859) 257-2900 x300
University Of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
<mailto:msimpson AT uky DOT edu>
mainframe --   An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete
companies serving billions of obsolete customers and making huge
obsolete
profits for their obsolete shareholders.  And this year's run twice as
fast
as last year's.