RE: Hmmmm.....$1 Billion

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Going back to the origin, I think he is basing it on the fact that
> interactive does not support threads but batch does.  He's trying to
> figure out why interactive has this limitation.  I guess if it's on
OS/400
> we'll call it a limitation, but if it's on Windows we'll call it a
bug.

Can you point to a single instance where I called a limitation of
Windows a bug?  I call security holes bugs, but those are hardly
limitations.  I call blue screens bugs, but those aren't limitations
either.  I call loss of data due to crashes in Microsoft applications
bugs, but that's not a limitation, it's a bug, and a nasty one at that.

The lack of thread support for interactive jobs is a limitation.  Why
don't interactive programs allow multi-threading?  Perhaps because it's
not needed, and IBM made an architectural decision that helps
interactive performance by removing overhead required for
multi-threading.  That's at least as plausible a reason as some massive
bug.

The point is that none of us know the reason, and in fact IBM is pretty
clear about saying it's simply something they don't support, and so the
label "bug" is awfully presumptuous.
 
Joe