Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.ibm:384 comp.dcom.lans:2164
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
From: bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.ibm,comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: TCP/IP for IBM/MVS systems
Summary: mildly inflammatory (my first of the new year :-)
Keywords: ACC, MITEK, etc.
Message-ID: <30322@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 3 Jan 89 15:57:39 GMT
References: <R00001@rwmvs.RAY.COM>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: bob@cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science
Lines: 23

In article <R00001@rwmvs.RAY.COM> HEDGPETH.S@RWMVS.RAY.COM (Steve Hedgpeth) writes:
>Does anyone know anything about the following Vendors/Products in
>terms of Reliability, Support, Installations, History, etc ?
>...
>3. IBM has a TCP option for the IBM/MVS operating system but it is
>   not available until 3Q89.

(a) Why is that a "has" and an "is not", in the present tense?  If a
    product won't be available for another six to nine months, say
    "will have" and "will not be".

(b) It sounds like this particular vendor's IP software, at least for
    this particular hardware and operating system, has no track record
    in terms of reliability, support, installation, etc.  Your
    question is unanswerable in this case.

Why is it that some vendors can get away with trying to {im,de}press
the market with extreme-advance announcements, and others can't?  The
answer "They've been around long enough to be reliable" doesn't wash.
IBM, in particular, has a history of phantom product announcements.

Grrr... everyone should play by the same rules, not just the little
guys.