Hi, :) Driving a yugo is an "example of" driving a 18 wheel truck, but it's not an 18-wheel truck, and the exercise is almost useless if you need to drive an 18-wheel truck. :)
If you don't have DB2, CICS or IMS, (which a good number of sites don't have), what would they use to "practice" with? Also, the portable z/OSMF is a HUGE overhead hog on a z13s. Remember a single engine z13s is only 15 MSU (about 80 MIP). To start z/OSMF takes about 90,000,000 i/o's and over 900 seconds just to get started on one. Ordering from Broadcom/CA is not the same as ordering from IBM, ordering and installing most software is not the same as ordering and installing z/OS itself. But I'm getting away from the actual point of all this...... The problem is not the movement to a new method, that happens all the time, the problem is moving there in the middle (beginning actually) of a new release being made available. Where is the logic in doing that? If there are problems with the method for users, (especially those with small machines), by the time they order the software, it's already too late to do anything about it except get the driver system. No "other" vendor went to z/OSMF delivery as the "ONLY" vehicle in the middle of any release. I'm sure it's not because they are afraid of change. They probably also realize how silly it would be to eliminate the old method in the middle of the road (so to speak). I do understand that IBM would like to save some money, but to do that mid release at the possible (probable) expense of the customer is really, really a bad idea. This is akin to not caring what the customer thinks because IBM knows that there is no "other" alternative. Brian On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:50:58 +0800, Timothy Sipples <[email protected]> wrote: >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
