Re: PF member current number of increments larger than the max -- MIDRANGE-L

Subject: Re: PF member current number of increments larger than the max
From: Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:08:39 -0600
List-archive: <https://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: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/options/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

My response to this is that IBM is generally pretty careful about giving us choices that let us shoot ourselves in the foot. If IBM has left *NOMAX as an option then they have a reason for it.

On 11/7/2018 6:23 AM, Rob Berendt wrote:

Why *NOMAX?
Run away jobs for one.

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: PF member current number of increments larger than the max , Birgitta Hauser
Re: PF member current number of increments larger than the max , Raul Jager
Re: PF member current number of increments larger than the max , Rob Berendt

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.