Disclaimer: I (or we) don't have z/OSMF and z/OS v2.1, maybe next year, when we are deemed not be naughty SysOps... ;-)
Cheryl Walker wrote: >But the reason to go to z/OSMF is not because people want cheap labor, but >because it's simply better (at least in 2.1). John McKown is talking about his problem of his company wanting cheap and ultra cheap labor. Each to its own. >If I were a sysprog again, I would definitely prefer z/OSMF to do my standard >tasks. I could get my work done more quickly, and with a better audit trail of >who did what. The history function of z/OSMF is one of its strengths. Where is that audit trail (besides history function) being kept? Just curious. >Just because the tool is easier doesn't mean that you don't need experts. You >still need to understand service classes, performance indicators, and much >more. Agreed. And experience too. >I personally think that z/OSMF reduces the manual effort to let you >concentrate on more important matters. If you say so. Thanks. Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
