Brian Westerman wrote: >Next, using CICS, DBV2 or IMS serverpac as a sample/example. >There are a great many sites who do not have CICS or DB2 or >IMS, I can name 30 just off the top of my head. How will >they "practice"? How will they "learn the process now?" >Are you penalizing them because they use Adabas or Oracle >instead of DB/2 or IMS? You don't even have to answer >because the only correct response is in the affirmative.
I disagree with your last sentence here, and that's why I'm replying to this specific section you wrote. I don't think it's at all fair. I quite agree that it's important to support diverse z/OS sites. But that's really the point of what's happening. This isn't just about IBM. There's a multi-vendor effort involved to make mainframe software product installations better and easier. As one notable example, Broadcom's CA IDMS and some other CA products (such as Ideal and OPS/MVS) are already available in z/OSMF Portable Software Instance form. That said, as Marna mentioned, *every* z/OS licensee already has access to at least one z/OSMF Portable Software Instance, today (and for some time now). The sample PSI is available for free download here: https://www.ibm.com/support/z-content-solutions/serverpac-install-zosmf/ Click on the "Try it" tab. CICS, Db2, and IMS are (only three) *examples of* products that are already available as z/OSMF Portable Software Instances. IBM mentions them because IBM is IBM (these products happen to be IBM products), and these products are popular ones thus good examples. But they're only examples in this context. *Every* z/OS licensee already has *at least one* z/OSMF Portable Software Instance available to them at no additional charge. I don't think it's fair to argue that any z/OS licensee is "penalized" when they all already have no additional charge access to at least one of these packages. Per that argument a site with z/OS and CICS licenses but not an IDMS license would be "penalized" in comparison to a site with z/OS, CICS, and IDMS licenses. Per that argument IBM would be "penalizing" sites that don't currently license a particular product whenever IBM expands its z/OSMF Portable Software Instance catalog to include that particular product. ("Less" practice, right?) No progress could ever be made, because someone would always be "penalized," and that would be bad, if we agree with your argument. So I don't agree with it. Would you like some more z/OSMF Portable Software Instances beyond the sample IBM provides? - - - - - - - - - - Timothy Sipples I.T. Architect Executive Digital Asset & Other Industry Solutions IBM Z & LinuxONE - - - - - - - - - - E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
