Re: [Security400] Authority annoyances, continued...

["Dave Shaw" <daveshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug,

Yeah, I know (and knew) that's what they were for.  It horrified me anyway,
especially since I hadn't programmed on either of those machines and hadn't
known that their security capabilities were so seldom used.

Dave Shaw
Simpsonville, SC
---
If you would like to participate in the MAPICS-L mailing list go to
http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/mapics-l and follow the
instructions.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Handy" <dhandy1@bellsouth.net>


> Dave,
>
> >I remember being
> >horrified when they announced the /400 and I found out what Levels 10 and
20
> >were - maybe they were necessary for marketing reasons, but they
certainly
> >weren't improvements in my mind.
>
> I think they were "necessary" for better S36EE compatibility.  Although
the S/34
> and S/36 had "resource security" available it was very underutilized.
Many
> (most?) shops ran with only signon security and -- perish the though -- a
few
> didn't even do that.
>
> Doug