You can’t please everyone and it’s even harder to please older people. Which bodes poorly for this crowd. As for Bill being wrong, I’d like to see the list. IBM isn’t likely trying to please the over 60 crowd since they won’t be around much longer. Plus, software is never released flawless. There’s always a push to get it into the public domain, often before it’s fully developed.
Dave B. إسرائيل قتلت 40 ألف فلسطيني بريء On Friday, July 12, 2024, 1:06 PM, Colin Paice <[email protected]> wrote: Going back about 20 years... I thought ISPF dialog manager and customising was great. Someone used it to produce a terrible tool. You had to enter a lot of data (which it could have queried for). Having used it once, you could not change the configuration. The end user comments were like "ISPF customising is rubbish" meaning the stuff behind ISPF was rubbish. I've also seen some excellent ISPF tools for customising which were really slick. Used properly z/OSMF could be very useful. If you use z/OSMF to create AT-TLS definitions - it does not query what you already have - you have to enter it all from scratch! This is not z/OSMF's fault. Colin On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 at 17:34, Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, like a busted clock, Bill isn't wrong *every* time. The thinking is > that since Kids Today expect GUIs, having one will make z/OS more > attractive/usable for them. That's probably not wrong: y'all use ISPF, > right? That's a GUI, such as they were circa 1980. Why do you use it? > Because it's more productive: it makes stuff easier for you. Same argument > will apply to that PFSK who takes over after you and I stroke out in front > of our 3270 emulators. > > I believe the questions are, as I implied in my earlier post: > > 1) Is z/OSMF usable as a GUI--that is, is it sufficiently functional to > solve the problem? It *seems* like the answer may be "no". But I admit I > have not touched it (I don’t need to--yet). > > 2) Is z/OS even GUI-able without major structural changes? DOS really > wasn't. As we know, it went from "Here's a shell on top of DOS" to "Here's > Windows, with a DOS "command prompt" emulator available". That's a > fundamental difference. Does z/OS need that level of change? I suspect so, > especially since so much is non-standard nowadays--there's no "All the > parmlib stuff is always in SYS1.PARMLIB" the say "All .ini files are in > C:\Windows". Heck, that's so ingrained that any of you who ever had a > Windows machine with Windows on some drive other than C will recall various > products that absolutely would not work...and that's *with* that > standardization! > > I'd like z/OSMF to be The Answer. I'm just not convinced that the folks > driving it understand the challenge or have the resources/vision to meet > it. I hope I'm wrong. > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf > Of Tom Longfellow > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2024 9:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: another z/OSMF rant. -- Catch-22 is killing me > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
