On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:16:34 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L <[email protected]> wrote:
>I agree that it is a done deal, however that I think it IS the wrong message. >Too many users have based their procedures on the current schedule and waiting >two years for new releases will just slow down the implementation of new >functions. The cant that 'many users can't upgrade every year so we will help >them by changing to every two years' doesn't pass muster. This will make those >users upgrade every four years now and penalize those who do attempt to stay >current. >I don't like it. >Just my ranting for the day, >Jon > I tend to agree. Too many shops I know of only upgrade because they don't want to go beyond the EOS date. What I wanted was an extra 6 months added to EOS. So if a release was skipped (for whatever reason) you weren't running up against the Sept. EOS date of the running release or year end freezes if there were any delays in installation and roll out of the new release. Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:[email protected] Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
