Re: 5798FAX vs V6R1 -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: 5798FAX vs V6R1
From: Tom Liotta <qsrvbas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:54:37 -0800
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

rob@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Based on the previous should I recommend that IBM not install the commands in QSYS, but instead install the commands in QUSRSYS?

Would anyone using 5798FAX have an issue with that?

IMO, if it's not going to be handled as an integral part of "QSYS", it never should be placed into QSYS. I don't think it matters quite so much if it goes into QSYS _and_ somewhere else such as QUSRSYS.

Even IBM shouldn't be putting stuff in QSYS that doesn't belong there... IMO.

Tom Liotta

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: 5798FAX vs V6R1 , rob

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 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.