Bill Johnson posted a couple more links to mainframe blog posts from a mainframe vendor-more asking the barber if you need a shave; but even ignoring that, you don't appear to have actually read the articles, Bill.
The first one <https://blog.syncsort.com/2018/09/mainframe/mainframes-secure-even-more-secure/> says IBM Z is more secure because it's less common. That's not inherent security; that's like saying your car is less vulnerable because you park it far from the madding crowd. It may be *attacked* less, but that doesn't make it inherently more *secure*. The second article <https://blog.syncsort.com/2018/06/mainframe/9-mainframe-statistics/> cites a bunch of fun statistics, including repeating that many large enterprises use them. Again, that says nothing about superior technology or security: the L-word (legacy) can entirely explain this. It doesn't *have* to, but you're just not coming up with any evidence to support your position, sir. You also asked: > Can you provide evidence that says non mainframe platforms are as secure or > more secure than the mainframe? I'm not the one making claims about one technology being gooderT than another: I'm merely suggesting that there's no evidence to support your assertion that IBM Z is more secure. Asking for support of an unsubstantiated assertion is always reasonable-otherwise I can claim the moon is made of green cheese and expect you to believe it, right? .phsiii ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
