|
Strictly from a ptf perspective and not a WAS perspective, I would think yes. But depending on what group ptf's. IBM has gotten better on what ptf's need an ipl. They still have a long way to go. Often it is easier to send instructions to do a GO PTF 8 and tell it to IPL than to say, not to IPL but then do a APYPTF LICPGM(*ALL) APY(*TEMP) DELAYED(*NO) and hope they all IPL. Complications from that include - You may run in to some ptf's that do require an IPL and you'll have to IPL anyway - IBM trick of not requiring an IPL, but a particular ptf may require that you end so much stuff that you might as well IPL. Recently I've seen some that either require we end TCP/IP or even bring our system into a restricted state. On our systems bringing down tcp/ip means you might as well IPL because there isn't a user here who won't notice it. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Rob Berendt
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 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.