RE: PTF to avoid ?

["Hall, Philip" <phall@xxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

> We just had Service Director download and bunch of PTF's last
> night and about half of them now have that "disclaimer" in
> them, whether it really has anything to do with the actual
> PTF or not. Looks like a major "heads up" for
> folks that might be using Fast/400 ?

I also doubt that most of these have anything to do with the PTF's in question 
*or* with trying to stop FAST/400 either, that standard disclaimer seems to be 
more FUD from IBM.

Also, if IBM just marked the *actual* PTF's that unsuccessfully[*] attempt to 
stop FAST/400, then all IBM would be doing is giving a 'heads up' to the 
FAST/400 developers - not something I think IBM would want to intentionally do 
;-)

--phil

[*] I say 'unsuccessfully' as I'm sure we would see postings on the list by 
FAST/400 haters (or disgruntled FAST/400 users) should the day come IBM finally 
disabled it - we haven't yet, so any PTF's put out by IBM must therefore be 
'unsuccessful' ?