ADSM-L

AW: [ADSM-L] AW: [ADSM-L] ASR backup failed

2005-12-16 12:07:51
Subject: AW: [ADSM-L] AW: [ADSM-L] ASR backup failed
From: Thomas Rupp <Thomas.Rupp AT ILLWERKE DOT AT>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:07:45 +0100
Hi Richard,

I second that.
I recently was looking for a message number, I couldn't find it in my 
downloaded edition so I re-downloaded the manual and voilà.
I don't know why I did it - it's simply intuition when beeing in IT for more
than 25 years ;-)

Thomas

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] Im Auftrag 
von Richard Sims
Gesendet: Freitag, 16. Dezember 2005 18:01
An: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Betreff: Re: [ADSM-L] AW: [ADSM-L] ASR backup failed


On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:39 AM, Thomas Rupp wrote:

> Please download the most current version of the 5.3 message
> manual. ...

Hi, Thomas - Good point.

Unfortunately, IBM has royally confused the customer base with really
poor, confusing identification of the manuals...

The seeming 5.3 version of the Messages manual (SC32-9090-02) that I
have as a PDF says that it is for "Version 5.3" (no further
distinction) and that it is the "Sixth Edition (December 2004)".

The version of the Messages manual currently on the Web site
(SC32-9090-04) says that it is for "Version 5.3" (again, no further
distinction), and that it is the "Fifth Edition (October 2005)".
Huh?  Is this time warp documentation?  Are the publications people
not doing cross-edition proofreading?

Could an IBMer monitoring this List get back to the documentation
people and have them straighten out what edition is what, and put a
5.3.x identifier on the cover so that it's obvious what sub-level the
manual pertains to?

    thanks,  Richard Sims

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • AW: [ADSM-L] AW: [ADSM-L] ASR backup failed, Thomas Rupp <=