In what way does z/OSMF make zOS more viable? The new crowd of fresh young bucks will have to learn 'something' in order to work with zOS. Why does it have to be an 'abstraction' layer isolating them from the down and dirty details to get a working system. Right now, their "viability" tool has me dead in the water. Unable to do my JOB. Sooner or later someone will notice and it will be another nail in the casket of zOS and IBM.
Oh sure, GUIs are cool looking and sexy. We are finishing up year 25+ of a 5 year plan to get off the mainframe. It was sold to the money men with a few prototype panels of how the GUI might work. The only techincal detail they were concerned with was "When can we have it". I contend that the total costs of the grand networks of interelated servers costs way more than the costs on our mainframe. But, sturdy work horse don't look the same as thoroughbreds. Pretty pictures win the day. I guess I am not buying into current thinking. like "If you CAN encrypt, you MUST encrypt" , "If it CAN look like Windows, it MUST look like Windows" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
