|
>But hasn't IBM's -official- stance always been >that CFINT is NOT a governor, that it is because >of "technical" reasons it kicks in? You all have >been arguing that this product might cause >problems because it gets around a governor, but >IBM has never officially admitted that that is >what CFINT is. IBM's official stance has always been "tinker with our internals at your own risk." Whether one subscribes to the conspiracy view ("IBM are secretly throttling performance") or to the published view ("CFINT is the symptom of overloading the box with interactive work") the net result is the same: tinkering with internals to modify internal OS/400 work management flow goes against IBM intentions. If "conspiracy" IBM sense a revenue loss they will undoubtedly press the legal issues. If "published" IBM sense that this is causing maintenance issues, they will trot out the "we're not supporting you until it's removed" line. I can dimly imagine the scenario where IBM allows this product to flourish under the banner of "3rd party software is a Good Thing" but it's a long shot. --buck
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.