FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
McKown, John
sounds a bit ominous to me. But, then again, I don't know.
I just thought it might be of interest to some here as well.
--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: FLEX-ES S/390 Emulator [mailto:FLE...@ibm-main.lst
On Behalf Of Steven Friedman
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:30 PM
To: FLE...@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
A Letter to the FLEX-ES User Community:
An unfortunate set of circumstances has recently arisen that,
unless addressed by IBM immediately, will result in the abrupt
termination of the very successful 6 year-old Partnerworld for
Developers FLEX-ES delivery program.
To provide some history for background purposes, T3
Technologies, Inc. is a long time IBM Premier Business Partner,
specializing in FLEX-ES technology. In 2000, shortly after the IBM P/390
product program ended, members of the IBM PWD community had no
affordable hardware options for development platforms. I personally
approached Jeff Magdahl, then manager of the S/390 PWD program, with an
idea to again offer PWD members a very low cost mainframe development
platform, this time based on FLEX-ES technology. The concept I brought
to Jeff was fully in synch with his mission for PWD-to incent developers
to continue developing mainframe applications, thereby maintaining a
healthy environment for IBM mainframe sales.
The result was a family of products offered by T3, ranging from
a "Mainframe on a Thinkpad" to our more robust 100 MIPS+ x-Series based
servers. To date, T3 has delivered over 600 tServer units in 28
countries, a majority to the approximately 1,400-member worldwide
mainframe PWD community.
Unfortunately, a S/390 licensing dispute between IBM and
Fundamental Software (FSI) is now underway and the collateral damage
will likely mean the end to this PWD delivery program. It seems FSI has
a patent license with IBM for certain S/390 rights that expire on
October 31, 2006. Without renewal of that licensing program, FSI can no
longer provide FLEX-ES licenses to this PWD program. And, incredibly, it
seems IBM is not currently entertaining a renegotiation of that license
agreement with FSI. It is entirely likely that the IBM'ers responsible
for this (lack of) negotiation are not even aware of the impact this may
have, and the potential ripple effect through the mainframe developer's
community. With no similar low cost options available, many developers
will have no choice but to cease their mainframe development and support
of literally hundreds if not thousands of mainframe software
applications.
Strategically, this does not make much business sense for IBM,
obviously has an impact to T3's business, and likely has significant
ramifications to ALL PWD businesses. I am therefore asking all of our
customers, indeed all PWD members to join me in a letter/emailing
campaign to the relevant IBM managers in zSeries and in the Partnerworld
for Developers Program. My hope is to shed some light on the situation
to the decision makers and force a restoration of this very important
mainframe developer's incentive program.
Without your collective help, this very beneficial PWD program
will end in just 26 days!!! Please be specific and direct in your
emails. Pull no punches, and let IBM know how you feel about this, and
how it impacts your plans to continue delivering zArchitecture products.
Existing PWD FLEX licenses are valid through the end dates of
your current IBM agreements. No action can be taken to prematurely
cancel those agreements. T3 and FSI will continue to provide the highest
levels of support to all FLEX users through those expiration dates. New
orders can be filled through October 31.
.
This situation has no effect on current production users of
tServers or other FLEX-based systems. FLEX-ES production licenses are,
essentially, lifetime licenses. T3 and FSI will continue to provide
support to our production customers for as long as you request it.
Let us not sit back and hope that saner minds prevail. Join me
in taking some action to protect our collective business futures.
Sincerely
Steven Friedman
President, T3 Technologies Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to list...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
David Andrews
"Liberty" servers. Liberty overlaps the z9BC low end, perhaps through
250 MIPS.
I'm sure Phil would know more, but he's probably too busy fiddling with
his Audi to care much.
--
David Andrews
A. Duda and Sons, Inc.
david....@duda.com
Ray Mullins
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Andrews
Sent: Thursday October 05 2006 13:11
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
You have to wonder whether this is related to T3's introduction of PSI's
"Liberty" servers. Liberty overlaps the z9BC low end, perhaps through 250
MIPS.
I'm sure Phil would know more, but he's probably too busy fiddling with his
Audi to care much.
---
It's not. Here is a similar notice from Cornerstone employee Mike Hammock
from the FLEX-ES list:
----
I've been asked to post this announcement:
===============================================
Announcement: Fundamental Software has notified IBM and it's PWD resellers
that they are unable to accept orders for PWD FLEX-ES after November 1,
2006.
Background: FSI applied for the renewal of certain IBM patents that expire
on November 1st. IBM has yet to approve their request. While this issue
may be resolved any day, it is prudent at this time for Cornerstone to
advise both our partners and customers of the pending situation. First,
Cornerstone will continue to accept orders for FLEX-ES PWD licenses until
October 20th. That date allows enough time to manage requests through the
IBM PWD approval process. Note: There is no guarantee that IBM will
process and approve all the requests that we submit before the end date of
November 1. If you were considering a new FLEX-ES PWD license, renewal,
or upgrade, it is critical that you start this process NOW. Cornerstone's
support of FLEX-ES will continue without interruption for the full term of
your PWD agreements. For example, a PWD with a 3 year maintenance agreement
executed prior to November 1, 2006, will continue to receive support from
Cornerstone for the duration of that agreement.
We hope this issue is resolved soon, but it may or may not happen by
November 1st. Please act accordingly.
================================================
Mike
C. M. (Mike) Hammock
Sr. Technical Support
zFrame & IBM zSeries Solutions
(404) 643-3258
mham...@csihome.com
-----
Sadly, I believe the FLEX-ES world is going to be in upheaval, and the PWD
program is the first casualty.
Eric N. Bielefeld
of the developers of software products for your system. Also, get rid of
all of the really small companies off the mainframe that will never now grow
into large customers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of smarts in IBM in
some areas.
I have a question. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I
haven't heard any updates lately. Does the FlexEs product legally run z/OS
in 64 bit addressing mode yet? The last we discussed it on IBM-Main, if I
remember correctly, you couldn't run 64 bit addressing mode, meaning z/OS
1.6 and above wouldn't run on it.
Why would IBM want to kill off their smallest customers? It just doesn't
make sense. IBM is sure sending a lot of mixed signals! Phil Payne - where
are you?
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
Tom Moulder
got the issues worked out.
Tom Moulder
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Of Eric N. Bielefeld
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:37 PM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
are you?
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.13/463 - Release Date: 10/4/2006
Steve Comstock
> This surely seems like a good way to start killing the mainframe. Get
> rid of the developers of software products for your system. Also, get
> rid of all of the really small companies off the mainframe that will
> never now grow into large customers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of
> smarts in IBM in some areas.
I keep trying to get their attention, but
to no avail.
>
> I have a question. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I
> haven't heard any updates lately. Does the FlexEs product legally run
> z/OS in 64 bit addressing mode yet? The last we discussed it on
> IBM-Main, if I remember correctly, you couldn't run 64 bit addressing
> mode, meaning z/OS 1.6 and above wouldn't run on it.
We just installed 1.7; there are still some of the
newer hardware instructions that are not supported
- unlike Hercules, where instruction support seems
more robust; but, of course, they're not a legal
platform for running z/OS. [In fairness, I was able
to run in 64-bit amode pretty early on.]
>
> Why would IBM want to kill off their smallest customers? It just
> doesn't make sense. IBM is sure sending a lot of mixed signals! Phil
> Payne - where are you?
Small doesn't return big returns. Future? Ah,
you mean next quarter. After all, "we're a bit
of an elephant so it takes us a little time
to turn around". But I've been told there are
changes a'brewin'. We'll see.
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
Fred Hoffman
AFAIK, an account that I moonlight at is loading 1.7 onto the box.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of Eric N. Bielefeld
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:37 PM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
This surely seems like a good way to start killing the mainframe. Get rid
of the developers of software products for your system. Also, get rid of
all of the really small companies off the mainframe that will never now grow
into large customers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of smarts in IBM in
some areas.
I have a question. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I
haven't heard any updates lately. Does the FlexEs product legally run z/OS
in 64 bit addressing mode yet? The last we discussed it on IBM-Main, if I
remember correctly, you couldn't run 64 bit addressing mode, meaning z/OS
1.6 and above wouldn't run on it.
Why would IBM want to kill off their smallest customers? It just doesn't
make sense. IBM is sure sending a lot of mixed signals! Phil Payne - where
are you?
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
Wayne Driscoll
There never really were any "Technical" issues with running 64-bit under
FLEX, it just worked. The issue, and why Tom gets around it, is a
"legal & licensing" one. IBM will only allow PWD members to run a FLEX
in 64 bit mode. If you were a small shop that wanted to run z/OS under
FLEX for "production" work (assuming that production isn't compiling and
testing software products), then you were limited to only 31 bit mode.
Again, limited smarts in IBM on this.
Wayne Driscoll
Product Developer
JME Software LLC
NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own.
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of Tom Moulder
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:41 PM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
I work with a company that is running a FLEX-ES and z/OS 1.6. Guess
they got the issues worked out.
Tom Moulder
are you?
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.13/463 - Release Date:
10/4/2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Mills
zPad Base System: ... Full S/390 capability, including ESA/390 Features for
VSE/ESA, VM/ESA, z/VM and Z/OS and 64 bit zSeries support, IBM Denier nylon
carry case.
And to think I remember when mainframes did not come with a nylon carrying
case.
Charles
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Of Eric N. Bielefeld
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 2:37 PM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
I have a question. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I
haven't heard any updates lately. Does the FlexEs product legally run z/OS
in 64 bit addressing mode yet? The last we discussed it on IBM-Main, if I
remember correctly, you couldn't run 64 bit addressing mode, meaning z/OS
1.6 and above wouldn't run on it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Moulder
What you say makes sense because the company is a PWD.
Tom Moulder
Eric N. Bielefeld
needs 10 - 30 MIPS or so, you can only run 31 bit mode? That doesn't make
any sense. Is there anyone out there from IBM who can explain this, and
tell us why IBM wants to kill the FLEX box? I'm sure that a few of the
IBMers on this list must at least know who to ask and could find out, but I
bet we won't hear from any IBMers.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
> Eric,
> There never really were any "Technical" issues with running 64-bit under
> FLEX, it just worked. The issue, and why Tom gets around it, is a
> "legal & licensing" one. IBM will only allow PWD members to run a FLEX
> in 64 bit mode. If you were a small shop that wanted to run z/OS under
> FLEX for "production" work (assuming that production isn't compiling and
> testing software products), then you were limited to only 31 bit mode.
> Again, limited smarts in IBM on this.
> Wayne Driscoll
> Product Developer
> JME Software LLC
> NOTE: All opinions are strictly my own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Altmark
> I have a question. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I
> haven't heard any updates lately. Does the FlexEs product legally run
z/OS
> in 64 bit addressing mode yet? The last we discussed it on IBM-Main, if
I
> remember correctly, you couldn't run 64 bit addressing mode, meaning
z/OS
> 1.6 and above wouldn't run on it.
As it has been explained to me, members of IBM PartnerWorld in Development
(PWD) are entitled to obtain the FLEX-ES dongle that enables the
z/Architecture support. Non-members are not.
Non-PWD members are not supposed to be in possession of the dongle and are
not licensed to use z/Architecture on the box even if they *do* possess
it. (An agreement with IBM to the contrary overrides the whole thing, of
course.)
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
Edward Jaffe
> So, if your a PWD member, you can run 64 bit mode, but if your company
> just needs 10 - 30 MIPS or so, you can only run 31 bit mode? That
> doesn't make any sense. Is there anyone out there from IBM who can
> explain this, and tell us why IBM wants to kill the FLEX box? I'm
> sure that a few of the IBMers on this list must at least know who to
> ask and could find out, but I bet we won't hear from any IBMers.
If you run 10-30 MIPS, chances are you're running z/VSE. That operating
system runs on the vast majority of "production" FLEX-ES systems. There
are other z/Architecture emulators coming into the picture and real
mainframe hardware now starts as small as 28 MIPS, so the landscape has
changed considerably since FLEX-ES was first introduced. IBM may be
taking a wait and see approach.
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310-338-0400 x318
edj...@phoenixsoftware.com
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/
Timothy Sipples
>If you run 10-30 MIPS, chances are you're running z/VSE. That operating
>system runs on the vast majority of "production" FLEX-ES systems. There
>are other z/Architecture emulators coming into the picture and real
>mainframe hardware now starts as small as 28 MIPS, so the landscape has
>changed considerably since FLEX-ES was first introduced. IBM may be
>taking a wait and see approach.
I have no particular insider knowledge on this, but a few more points on
small mainframes:
1. IBM dropped the minimum purchase level for mainframe software products
down to 3 MSUs because smaller customers needed this (and small projects
within larger companies). This now means the mainframe is the cheapest
place to put, say, WebSphere Message Broker.
2. IBM dropped the price almost in half on the 26 MIPS System z9 BC A01
from the previous entry model, the z890 Model 110. I didn't do a totally
scientific study, but I believe today's mainframe is the same dollar price
as any of the previously lowest price entry models, including the "baby
mainframes" of yesteryear that people remember fondly. In
inflation-adjusted terms it's much lower of course. The z9 is a much
better machine than any predecessor and every bit a real mainframe, even at
26 MIPS, for true mainframe qualities of service.
3. The U.S. price of a brand new BC A01 is now about the same as one full
time (fully burdened) employee's annual compensation, for perspective.
4. The 26 MIPS model is 4 MSUs. You can set subcapacity limits below that
if your needs are even more modest, and special software pricing is
available.
5. Genuine z/OS (in the form of z/OS.e) is available for a small fraction
of the price for any new workloads, including DB2.
6. There's more competition than ever in the tools and utilities business,
driving down costs. There are even 5 operating systems available to
choose, including one IBM doesn't make (Linux) that's just a little
popular. :-)
7. IBM announced there will be changes to z/VSE pricing terms with Version
4 related to subcapacity. (This is good.)
8. The z800 (minimum 40 MIPS, subcapacity eligible) is a real 64-bit
mainframe and is available on the secondary market for less than the price
of popular automobiles. A "small" z900 (also subcapacity eligible) is
probably less than that. (Well, if a one person personal data center now
has a z900....)
All that said, small mainframe customers (and developers) should keep
letting IBM know what they need. IBM generally does respond if it can, as
in the examples above.
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: timothy...@us.ibm.com
Pinnacle
From: "Timothy Sipples" <timothy...@ibm-main.lst>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
>
>
> All that said, small mainframe customers (and developers) should keep
> letting IBM know what they need. IBM generally does respond if it can, as
> in the examples above.
>
Tim,
The bottom line is that IBM keeps erecting barriers for small developers to
get on the platform. That's why I'm still developing on a P390 with z/OS
V1R4 in 31-bit mode. PWD recently added a $1000/yr license charge for the
ADCD which was previously free. The FLEX-ES boxes at >10K for a laptop or
>30K for a server are priced beyond my means. So only the big developers
will continue to develop for z/OS, everyone else will keep developing for
NET, Java, and Linux on their commodity PC's for <$1000. If IBM abandons
FLEX-ES, you won't have any z/OS development happening in any company under
$1M market cap. Good luck when that happens.
Regards,
Tom Conley
Alan Altmark
wrote:
> The bottom line is that IBM keeps erecting barriers for small developers
to
> get on the platform. That's why I'm still developing on a P390 with
z/OS
> V1R4 in 31-bit mode. PWD recently added a $1000/yr license charge for
the
> ADCD which was previously free. The FLEX-ES boxes at >10K for a laptop
or
> >30K for a server are priced beyond my means. So only the big
developers
> will continue to develop for z/OS, everyone else will keep developing
for
> FLEX-ES, you won't have any z/OS development happening in any company
under
> $1M market cap. Good luck when that happens.
If PWD is really not affordable, then each and every member of PWD who
does z/OS development *should* rise up and be heard.
The rock/hard place is if you do s/w development as a hobby, not as a
business, and just want to have fun, recoup your costs, and have a little
something left over to supplement other sources of income. For those
folks the ante may be too high. But I just don't know; I've never been a
self-employed s/w developer.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Y Odo
> The rock/hard place is if you do s/w development as a hobby, not as a
> business, and just want to have fun, recoup your costs, and have a little
> something left over to supplement other sources of income. For those
> folks the ante may be too high. But I just don't know; I've never been a
> self-employed s/w developer.
>
myself. A lot of good things have come out of people who developed
stuff just for fun ...
Also, IBM excludes all those students who would want to write programs
on the mainframe or just learn how. They can get a Windows or Linux
laptop for about $1.5K with all the software they need. The only way
they can do anything with z/OS is to get an account on somebody's
mainframe ... which is nearly impossible at our institution.
They can get a Linux box and start experimenting and learning without
having to write up a project proposal and getting approval to get access
to a system.
--Stephen
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Y. Odo
Systems Engineering e-mail: Ste...@Hawaii.Edu
Information Technology Services phone: (808)956-2383
University of Hawai'i FAX: (808)956-2412
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
U5 Girls/Boys Master Coach
U10 Boys Age Group Coordinator
U16/U19 Girls Age Group Coordinator
Child and Volunteer Protection Advocate
AYSO Honolulu Region 178 e-mail: s...@Lava.Net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
R.S.
[...]
> Also, IBM excludes all those students who would want to write programs
> on the mainframe or just learn how. They can get a Windows or Linux
> laptop for about $1.5K with all the software they need. The only way
> they can do anything with z/OS is to get an account on somebody's
> mainframe ... which is nearly impossible at our institution.
>
> They can get a Linux box and start experimenting and learning without
> having to write up a project proposal and getting approval to get access
> to a system.
..or this persuades students to use Hercules and illegal copy of z/OS.
Like some IBMers do.
BTW: wouldn't it be simpler just to give z/OS *for free* to all the
hobbyists, students, maniacs ? Like few other OS vendors did.
Obviously with limitations for personal, non-commercial use, on
specified HW, etc.
Small developers would pay $xxxx yearly as today.
OK, I know. I would make z/OS *popular* which seems to be against IBM
policy.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
Phil Payne
much.
I've been booked for a magazine photo-shoot on Monday - "Practical Classics" - to illustrate a
how-to article about servicing AUdi fuel injection systems. When it's published, I'll post
the URI so you can admire my manly figure. Just bought a new T-shirt specially.
I'm not really that up to speed on the current status, largely because a lot of the
discussions have been between FSI (who are as tight as a duck's posterior sphincter when it
comes to discussing their relationships) and a very few people at IBM who are probably more
ashamed about discussing their activities that anything else.
And trying to find out how Google works is as much fun as Assembler I/O programming back in
the 1960s - nothing ever works like it's supposed to, and getting ahead of the game is fun.
I knew there was a contract expiry due, but I believed it was between FSI and T3. With all
the noise T3 has been making about the PSI "product", you can't blame FSI for being a little
cautious about renewing an agreement with the world-exclusive marketing arm of a competitor.
There are some very technical issues about intellectual property that I, for one, am glad I'm
not involved in.
I'm told that T3 is planning a launch of the PSI "product" and has invited its PWD customers -
not a way to improve relations with your other supplier. Or IBM, for that matter.
I do have a fragmentary transciript of the exact words an IBM executive used when referring to
PSI's chances of getting software licenses. I also know that PSI has a corporate lawyer with
a LOT of experience in precisely this sector. I await developments.
I know Steve will be very upset with me (but what's new about that) but my first take is that
he's poisoned his FSI relationship with his gung ho attitude to PSI, and now he's discovered
that the PSI "product" is no such thing.
I've always thought the FSI/IBM intellectual property agreements were of unspecified length
and mutual - FSI has a few patents, too - and I can't see that an expiry would be expected. I
don't think the agreements are as comprehensive as some people would like, but that's a horse
with different feathers.
I understand from a couple of sources that PWD AD/CD renewals are currently running below 70%.
This saddens me because it's another "critical mass" issue and I fear the platform is rapidly
approaching that in a number of ways.
Words fail me when it comes to IBM's refusal to sanction commercial 64-bit operation under
FLEX-ES. This is at one time the STUPIDEST and most predatory action IBM has taken since
1956. It is incredibly, cretinously dumb and will lead to the zSeries market collapsing
several years before it would otherwise do so. Given the huge profit margins on zSeries
software, it would IMO be appropriate for stockholders to ask for a review of this strategy
before it's too late - if it isn't already.
We now have the situation where ISVs are developing applications that mandate DB2 V8 and their
customers are unable to run it because their FLEX-ES system only supports ARCHLVL=2 in 31-bit
mode. So they buy a Superdome.
How ANYONE can maintain that IBM does what its customers want in this situation is really way
beyond me.
Can no one do TCO calculations at IBM any more? 寒as the skill evaporated? You can make a
zBox cheap, and its software, but you still need external peripherals - cost, power and
service - which you get thrown in with a FLEX-ES solution. Internally emulated DASD are a
damn sight faster, too. Have any of them compared the cost/GB between old iron and a state of
the art PC server? And things like Faketape and printer emulation have huge benefits for
small users. All things a big, dumb piece of iron can't do. The world has moved on. But I
understand the HMC got a new GUI recently, so that's all right.
I'm told that one senior zSeries executive "would be happy with an installed base loss around
5% a year". It's actually quite a bit more than that now - but can you even IMAGINE what
Thomas Watson would have said to a salesman who thought a declining base - or even a static
one - in some way acceptable?
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.co.uk
+44 7833 654 800
camac...@ibm-main.lst
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of IBM-MAIN automatic digest system
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:00 AM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: IBM-MAIN Index - 4 Oct 2006 to 5 Oct 2006 (#2006-279)
Index Date Size Poster and subject
----- ---- ---- ------------------
162281 10/05 86 From: "Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM"
<Kees.V...@KLM.COM>
Subject: Re: DB2 IRLM dispatching priority
162284 10/05 107 From: "Vernooy, C.P. - SPLXM"
<Kees.V...@KLM.COM>
Subject: Re: DB2 IRLM dispatching priority
162293 10/05 18 From: Jan Vanbrabant <jan.van...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: PPRC status display & reporting
162297 10/05 43 From: Itschak Mugzach <imug...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: PPRC status display & reporting
162298 10/05 14 From: Howard Brazee <how...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162306 10/05 38 From: Jan Vanbrabant <jan.van...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: PPRC status display & reporting
162307 10/05 11 From: Jan Vanbrabant <jan.van...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: PPRC status display & reporting
162308 10/05 74 From: Itschak Mugzach <imug...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: PPRC status display & reporting
162309 10/05 31 From: Itschak Mugzach <imug...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: PPRC status display & reporting
162312 10/05 52 From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162314 10/05 25 From: Howard Brazee <how...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162316 10/05 35 From: Howard Brazee <how...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: CRACKED!
162317 10/05 42 From: "Eric N. Bielefeld" <eric-p...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162319 10/05 11 From: Barry Merrill <ba...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162320 10/05 25 From: "Veilleux, Jon L" <Veill...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Monitoring Above the Bar Storage Usage
162321 10/05 70 From: "McKown, John"
<John....@HEALTHMARKETS.COM>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162322 10/05 16 From: john gilmore <john_w_...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: Monitoring Above the Bar Storage Usage
162323 10/05 21 From: Ed Finnell <Efinn...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162324 10/05 17 From: David Andrews <d...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: CRACKED!
162328 10/05 6 From: Ed Finnell <Efinn...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162330 10/05 45 From: "Veilleux, Jon L" <Veill...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: Monitoring Above the Bar Storage Usage
162332 10/05 72 From: Mark Zelden <mark....@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: Monitoring Above the Bar Storage Usage
162338 10/05 26 From: Bruce Black <bbl...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: PPRC status display & reporting
162354 10/05 33 From: Barry Merrill <ba...@ibm-main.lst>
Subject: Re: Monitoring Above the Bar Storage Usage
162358 10/05 29 From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"
<shmuel+...@PATRIOT.NET>
Subject: Re: Monitoring Above the Bar Storage Usage
162359 10/05 24 From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"
<shmuel+...@PATRIOT.NET>
Subject: Re: REAL memory column in SDSF
162361 10/05 66 From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"
<shmuel+...@PATRIOT.NET>
Subject: Re: THE on USS?
162363 10/05 17 From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"
<shmuel+...@PATRIOT.NET>
Subject: Re: CRACKED!
The sizes shown are the number of lines in the messages, not
counting
mail headers.
To order the messages you are interested in, simply reply to this
message
and include the original text, just as when you are replying to a
normal
message and want to quote what your correspondent said. Before
sending
the message, delete the lines corresponding to the items you are
not
interested in, and make sure your reply is going
to
IBM-MAIN-Se...@BAMA.UA.EDU, and not to IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU.
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 4:37 PM
> To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
>
>
> mainframe. Get rid
> of the developers of software products for your system.
> Also, get rid of
> all of the really small companies off the mainframe that will
> never now grow
> into large customers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of
> smarts in IBM in
> some areas.
zSeries no longer seems to be considered a stragetic system as best as I
can tell. It is expensive. And it is too reliable. What I mean is that
people don't seem to care anymore if a server dies once a week, just
reboot it and recover whatever was "in flight". Having hardware that
won't fail in 5 years of continuous operation is "over engineered"
because such reliability is no longer considered important to the
business customers.
>
> I have a question. I know this has been discussed in the past, but I
> haven't heard any updates lately. Does the FlexEs product
> legally run z/OS
> in 64 bit addressing mode yet? The last we discussed it on
> IBM-Main, if I
> remember correctly, you couldn't run 64 bit addressing mode,
> meaning z/OS
> 1.6 and above wouldn't run on it.
To the best of my knowledge, no. You cannot run commercial 64 bit on
FlexES. Likely ever.
>
> Why would IBM want to kill off their smallest customers? It
> just doesn't
> make sense. IBM is sure sending a lot of mixed signals!
> Phil Payne - where
> are you?
Well, pessimist that I am, I figure that current IBM management has a
mind set of "milk as much from the current zSeries customers as we can
and when they all get disgusted with us on zSeries, sell them some other
architecture system like a pSeries or iSeries". IOW, they seem to want
to kill zSeries. One nice way is their Linux on zSeries. Why? Because
they can get current zSeries z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE customers converted
onto Linux on the zSeries. Then, when the zSeries is killed, they can
say that their Linux investment is OK because Linux will run on xSeries,
iSeries, pSeries.
OK, I'm likely wrong in the above. I'm just not very pleased with IBM
right now on this subject and am venting.
>
> Eric Bielefeld
> Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
> Milwaukee Wisconsin
> 414-475-7434
--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Tom Marchant
<timothy...@US.IBM.COM> wrote:
>>If you run 10-30 MIPS, chances are you're running z/VSE. That operating
>>system runs on the vast majority of "production" FLEX-ES systems. There
>>are other z/Architecture emulators coming into the picture and real
>>mainframe hardware now starts as small as 28 MIPS, so the landscape has
>>changed considerably since FLEX-ES was first introduced. IBM may be
>>taking a wait and see approach.
>
>I have no particular insider knowledge on this, but a few more points on
>small mainframes:
>
>1. IBM dropped the minimum purchase level for mainframe software products
>down to 3 MSUs ...
Big deal
> This now means the mainframe is the cheapest
>place to put, say, WebSphere Message Broker.
Oh, really?
How useful is Websphere Message Broker on a 3 MSU z/OS system?
>
>2. IBM dropped the price almost in half on the 26 MIPS System z9 BC A01
>from the previous entry model, the z890 Model 110.
Big deal. *All* computing hardware has been dropping at that rate for the
last 40 years. The original HP 4-function calculator cost $700. A lot of
people have almost as much compute power in their wrist watch as a 168.
>
>3. The U.S. price of a brand new BC A01 is now about the same as one full
>time (fully burdened) employee's annual compensation, for perspective.
And the software costs for real customers continues to rise. Customers
have been abandoning the mainframe because of software costs. The hardware
costs have not been driving people away. The point of this thread is
really about the software costs.
>
>4. The 26 MIPS model is 4 MSUs. You can set subcapacity limits below that
>if your needs are even more modest, and special software pricing is
>available.
And IBM continues to cling tightly to the (almost) linear pricing
structure for software. Double the power of your hardware and pay
almost double the price for your software. With the power of
computers doubling every couple of years, it doesn't take any genius
to realize that it can't continue, but IBM can't seem to figure it
out. Pay me a penny today, two cents tomorrow. Double it every day,
and I'll retire wealthy in a month.
>
>5. Genuine z/OS (in the form of z/OS.e) is available for a small fraction
>of the price for any new workloads, including DB2.
But still with the same almost linear price curve, and only on small
processors.
Tom Marchant
Tom Marchant
phmi...@WI.RR.COM> wrote:
> ... Is there anyone out there from IBM who can explain this, and
>tell us why IBM wants to kill the FLEX box?
The IBMers here are technical, not political or bean counters.
Mark Zelden
<edj...@PHOENIXSOFTWARE.COM> wrote:
>If you run 10-30 MIPS, chances are you're running z/VSE.
Maybe, maybe not. I know a couple of very small production "MVS" environments
that fit into that category. We run one very small LPAR on a z900 that
I was looking at moving onto a flex 4 or 5 years ago. ESCON connectivity
to a STK tape SILO was a show stopper at that time.
Mark
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group
mailto: mark....@zurichna.com
z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
Phil Payne
What a load of gonads. Why do they keep posting press releases about obscure analysts that no
one has ever heard of?
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.co.uk
+44 7833 654 800
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Marchant
RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote:
>> The IBMers here are technical, not political or bean counters.
>
>What a load of gonads. Why do they keep posting press releases about
>obscure analysts that no one has ever heard of?
I stand corrected. Thanks. And what about always posting about how
cheap the hardware is getting?
Tom Marchant
Peter D. Ward
wrote:
>We just installed 1.7; there are still some of the
>newer hardware instructions that are not supported
Your version of FLex-ES is tailored per agreements.
>
>Small doesn't return big returns. Future? Ah,
>you mean next quarter. After all, "we're a bit
>of an elephant so it takes us a little time
>to turn around". But I've been told there are
>changes a'brewin'. We'll see.
>
Are you under NDA with IBM? No?.. then perhaps you'll share with the list
what you are intimating about.
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 9:31 AM
> To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
>
>
> RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote:
>
> >> The IBMers here are technical, not political or bean counters.
> >
> >What a load of gonads. Why do they keep posting press releases about
> >obscure analysts that no one has ever heard of?
>
> I stand corrected. Thanks. And what about always posting about how
> cheap the hardware is getting?
>
> Tom Marchant
Well, it depends on how you look at it, right? The price / performance
ratio is decreasing (or price per MIP in the old days). However, since
IBM is "killing" the lower performance systems, there are no inexpensive
machines (well that $100,000 z9BC is relatively inexpensive for a z9
system, but compared to an xSeries? and it doesn't include any
peripherials). For example, suppose that it cost $100,000 for a 200 MIP
box. That is 100,000/200 or $500/MIP. The next box out says that it only
costs $250/MIP. So it costs 1/2 as much. But now the minimum MIP value
is 500. So the box itself costs $125,000. So it costs more in actual
price.
Oh, and this doesn't address the software cost, which for many OEM
vendors is "linear" and based on the "total MIP" size of the box. So
your "cheaper per MIP" box has an astronomical software cost. This has
been cussed and discussed here many times. I have my opinion, but I
don't want to start that thread again.
Yes, I understand that MIP is a bad word. I just used it because I can
type it easily. Replace it with whatever you wish, such as MSU or
group-model or capacity model or ...
--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Pommier, Rex R.
All valid points, but as I see it, rather moot to the discussion.
You talk about the new z9 boxes being able to drop down to 26 MIPS. The
thing is still over 6 feet tall and weighs over half a ton! If I were a
software vendor, it would be rather difficult to take that on a plane to
a customer site to demo some software. And that doesn't include the
required external disk/tape/hardware console. Also kind of hard for a
small vendor to maintain a "real" mainframe if they are doing
development out of their home!
You mention the hardware costs of the used boxes as being cheap. I
agree, they are. However In our case, the software incentives for going
to the z9-BC made the new box cheaper over 3 years than a $10K Z800.
I think item 5 is the one that most troubles IBM's customer base. "New
workloads" can get the cheap z/OS.e. My management is concerned about
the high cost of the current workloads. As long as they are paying this
and seeing the seemingly cheaper cost structure of switching to another
platform, they are surely not going to look at putting new workloads on
"z".
We're running a "real mainframe". We just swapped out a 7060 for a
z9-BC, again for the software savings and being able to remain on a
supported level of z/OS. However, at least one of our software vendors
is a small (2 man) shop who does their development on a FLEX-ES machine.
If they lose their capability to do development on this small (cost and
size) platform will they go out of business and leave us in the lurch?
I think IBM either needs to come clean with their customer base and tell
us if they're going to abandon the z/OS market or make some real effort
to let the little guy remain (or return to being) competitive. If that
means IBM doesn't want to mess with the little guys, for heaven's sake,
get out of the way and let the partners like FLEX do it. In the long
run, IBM is killing their "z" market by eliminating their "coopetition".
Just my $.02.
Rex
I have no particular insider knowledge on this, but a few more points on
small mainframes:
1. IBM dropped the minimum purchase level for mainframe software
products down to 3 MSUs because smaller customers needed this (and small
projects within larger companies). This now means the mainframe is the
cheapest place to put, say, WebSphere Message Broker.
2. IBM dropped the price almost in half on the 26 MIPS System z9 BC A01
from the previous entry model, the z890 Model 110. I didn't do a
totally scientific study, but I believe today's mainframe is the same
dollar price as any of the previously lowest price entry models,
including the "baby mainframes" of yesteryear that people remember
fondly. In inflation-adjusted terms it's much lower of course. The z9
is a much better machine than any predecessor and every bit a real
mainframe, even at
26 MIPS, for true mainframe qualities of service.
3. The U.S. price of a brand new BC A01 is now about the same as one
full time (fully burdened) employee's annual compensation, for
perspective.
4. The 26 MIPS model is 4 MSUs. You can set subcapacity limits below
that if your needs are even more modest, and special software pricing is
available.
5. Genuine z/OS (in the form of z/OS.e) is available for a small
fraction of the price for any new workloads, including DB2.
6. There's more competition than ever in the tools and utilities
business, driving down costs. There are even 5 operating systems
available to choose, including one IBM doesn't make (Linux) that's just
a little popular. :-)
7. IBM announced there will be changes to z/VSE pricing terms with
Version
4 related to subcapacity. (This is good.)
8. The z800 (minimum 40 MIPS, subcapacity eligible) is a real 64-bit
mainframe and is available on the secondary market for less than the
price of popular automobiles. A "small" z900 (also subcapacity
eligible) is probably less than that. (Well, if a one person personal
data center now has a z900....)
All that said, small mainframe customers (and developers) should keep
letting IBM know what they need. IBM generally does respond if it can,
as in the examples above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Comstock
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:49:30 -0600, Steve Comstock <st...@TRAINERSFRIEND.COM>
> wrote:
>
>
>>We just installed 1.7; there are still some of the
>>newer hardware instructions that are not supported
>
> Your version of FLex-ES is tailored per agreements.
Yes, but it was _implied_ that this product would
be kept current. Of course, it was always at the
discretion of the supplier.
>
>
>>Small doesn't return big returns. Future? Ah,
>>you mean next quarter. After all, "we're a bit
>>of an elephant so it takes us a little time
>>to turn around". But I've been told there are
>>changes a'brewin'. We'll see.
>>
>
>
> Are you under NDA with IBM? No?.. then perhaps you'll share with the list
> what you are intimating about.
Whoops! Did I say that out loud?
Well, I don't have anything I would take to the bank.
I had a conversation last week with Florence Hudson,
who is in charge of zSeries, and Don Resnick, who
is in charge of the Academaic Initiative. It was a
good talk, and Florence alluded to a new advertising
campaign for zSeries coming out "soon".
Of course, all their recent ad campaigns have been
worse than stupid, so we have to wait and see if it's
really anything that will win over hearts and minds.
I continue to push the contacts I have, and get some
recognition of the problem(s), but no big actions
that really address what I see as the root issues.
So it all depends on if they are really listening and
"getting it". Like I say, they talk big (so I hear
them) but past history is such I want to wait and
see what really happens.
Kind regards,
-Steve
Eric N. Bielefeld
If your going to use bad words, at least spell them correctly. Its MIPS,
not MIP. Million Intructions Per SECOND! (LOL)
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
> Yes, I understand that MIP is a bad word. I just used it because I can
> type it easily. Replace it with whatever you wish, such as MSU or
> group-model or capacity model or ...
>
> --
> John McKown
> Senior Systems Programmer
> HealthMarkets
> Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
> Administrative Services Group
> Information Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Postpischil
> If your going to use bad words, at least spell them correctly. Its
> MIPS, not MIP. Million Intructions Per SECOND! (LOL)
When you correct someone else's spelling, mistakes make you look really
foolish. I surmise you meant "you're going" ?
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT
Jon Brock
Jon
<snip>
When you correct someone else's spelling, mistakes make you look really
foolish. I surmise you meant "you're going" ?
</snip>
Daniel_M...@ibm-main.lst
OR
Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed
Daniel McLaughlin
ZOS Systems Programmer
Crawford & Company
PH: 770 621 3256
Daniel_M...@us.crawco.com
If you aim at nothing you will hit it every time.
- Zig Ziglar
Ted MacNEIL
cheap the hardware is getting?
Another load of carp!
Hardware may be getting cheaper on a unit basis, but we're buying more units.
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
Pommier, Rex R.
(Man, it must be Friday...)
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of Gerhard Postpischil
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:07 PM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
Eric N. Bielefeld wrote:
> If your going to use bad words, at least spell them correctly. Its
> MIPS, not MIP. Million Intructions Per SECOND! (LOL)
When you correct someone else's spelling, mistakes make you look really
foolish. I surmise you meant "you're going" ?
Gerhard Postpischil
Bradford, VT
Alan Altmark
wrote:
> >And what about always posting about how
> cheap the hardware is getting?
>
> Another load of carp!
>
> Hardware may be getting cheaper on a unit basis, but we're buying more
units.
Well you can't blame IBM for your increased usage! :-) As the unit cost
declines, previously unaffordable projects suddenly become affordable.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey D. Smith
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
> Behalf Of Jon Brock
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:10 PM
> To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
>
>
> Jon
>
>
> <snip>
> When you correct someone else's spelling, mistakes make you look really
> foolish. I surmise you meant "you're going" ?
> </snip>
And MURPHY'S LAW strikes YET again.
It's a weak mind that can think of only one way to spell a werd.
/J
Ted MacNEIL
Also, you're mis-using it.
The "S" is not for pluralisation.
It stands for "Second".
As in:
Millions of Instructions Per Second.
It is 1 MIPS, 2 MIPS, red fish, blue fish.
NOT 1 MIP.
And, MSU's are just as bad, these days.
First, IBM isn't as rigourous with LSPR, any more.
Second, IBM Marketting skims a little off the top.
MIPS: Marketting's Indicator of Processor Speed.
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
McKown, John
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:02 PM
> To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
>
>
>
> Also, you're mis-using it.
>
> The "S" is not for pluralisation.
> It stands for "Second".
>
> As in:
> Millions of Instructions Per Second.
>
> It is 1 MIPS, 2 MIPS, red fish, blue fish.
>
> NOT 1 MIP.
>
> And, MSU's are just as bad, these days.
>
> First, IBM isn't as rigourous with LSPR, any more.
>
> Second, IBM Marketting skims a little off the top.
>
> MIPS: Marketting's Indicator of Processor Speed.
>
> When in doubt.
> PANIC!!
Well, didn't I say it was bad?!? I didn't say why it was bad <GRIN>.
--
John McKown
Senior Systems Programmer
HealthMarkets
Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage
Administrative Services Group
Information Technology
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its
content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action
based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Ted MacNEIL
"Don't be Misled by MIPS"
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
Alan Altmark
wrote:
> The "S" is not for pluralisation.
> It stands for "Second".
>
> As in:
> Millions of Instructions Per Second.
>
> It is 1 MIPS, 2 MIPS, red fish, blue fish.
>
> NOT 1 MIP.
Since it's an acronym, not a word, we get to make up whatever rules we
want for pluralization. Repeat after me: The box has 200 MIPS. It is a
200-MIP box. I think I should pay IBM more for each MIP, regardless of
how many MIPS the box has. "Has"? "...how many millions of instructions
per second the box *has*?"
OBVIOUSLY, MIPS is singluar, even it it isn't a noun. It is an adjective.
The correct plural form is "MIPSes".
I think Humpty Dumpty would agree.
> And, MSU's are just as bad, these days.
You mean MSUs (no apostrophe), of course. Or is "MSU" already plural
since it is "Units"? :-)
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted MacNEIL
Some times I can:
1. DB2 V1.2.
2. Any release of TCP/IP for MVS prior to OS/390 V2.5
3. Event Publisher
>As the unit cost declines, previously unaffordable projects suddenly become affordable.
In your dreams!
I have always believed IBM should stay away from TCO arguments.
They usually stick foot A into mouth B.
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
Ray Mullins
And I'd love to get a copy of BS2000/OSD and VM2000 to try to run under
Hercules.
I have wondered in the past if Fujitsu and/or Hitachi would be willing to
allow their versions of the operating systems out on a hobbyist license. I
know there are beaucoup legal restrictions resulting out of the 1980's
lawsuits, but now that those 31-bit operating systems are "obsolete" (note
judicious use of quotes) in the true IBM iron world I wonder if things could
be relaxed.
I've still got my Great Software Idea T, but right now because of time and
other reasons I'm working on prototyping using M$ Visual C++ Express (still
free until November, folks!), even though I can see it running on all
platforms, not just Intel/AMD and z/Architecture. (Anyone got a Bull with
GCOS 8 lying around :-) ? )
Later,
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Of R.S.
Sent: Friday October 06 2006 02:21
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
Stephen Y Odo wrote:
[...]
> Also, IBM excludes all those students who would want to write programs
> on the mainframe or just learn how. They can get a Windows or Linux
> laptop for about $1.5K with all the software they need. The only way
> they can do anything with z/OS is to get an account on somebody's
> mainframe ... which is nearly impossible at our institution.
>
> They can get a Linux box and start experimenting and learning without
> having to write up a project proposal and getting approval to get
> access to a system.
..or this persuades students to use Hercules and illegal copy of z/OS.
Like some IBMers do.
BTW: wouldn't it be simpler just to give z/OS *for free* to all the
hobbyists, students, maniacs ? Like few other OS vendors did.
Obviously with limitations for personal, non-commercial use, on specified
HW, etc.
Small developers would pay $xxxx yearly as today.
OK, I know. I would make z/OS *popular* which seems to be against IBM
policy.
Ted MacNEIL
Is it an adjective in the sentence:
The processor is/has 200 MIPS?
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
Alan Altmark
wrote:
> >OBVIOUSLY, MIPS is singluar, even it it isn't a noun. It is an
adjective.
>
> Is it an adjective in the sentence:
>
> The processor is/has 200 MIPS?
[Sorry - I'm having too much fun to stop.]
"The processor has 200 million instructions per second." Hmmm....very
existential.... While I can make that sentence mean something, it isn't
what you intended. The processor *has* MIPS, but it *executes* 200 million
instructions per second. But it would never "execute 200 MIPS" - that's
just wrong on SO many levels. Not to mention violent.
:-) I'll be glad when Saturday gets here.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Mullins
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Friday October 06 2006 13:51
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
On Friday, 10/06/2006 at 08:37 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <eama...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
> >OBVIOUSLY, MIPS is singluar, even it it isn't a noun. It is an
adjective.
>
> Is it an adjective in the sentence:
>
> The processor is/has 200 MIPS?
[Sorry - I'm having too much fun to stop.]
"The processor has 200 million instructions per second." Hmmm....very
existential.... While I can make that sentence mean something, it isn't
what you intended. The processor *has* MIPS, but it *executes* 200 million
instructions per second. But it would never "execute 200 MIPS" - that's
just wrong on SO many levels. Not to mention violent.
:-) I'll be glad when Saturday gets here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted MacNEIL
Put your hands on your head!
And, STEP AWAY from this discussion!
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
J R
It shouldn't reflect the plural object "200 MIPS".
>From: Alan Altmark <Alan_A...@ibm-main.lst>
>Reply-To: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU>
>To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
>Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:22:02 -0400
>
>regardless of how many MIPS the box has. "Has"? "...how many millions of
>instructions
>per second the box *has*?"
>
>OBVIOUSLY, MIPS is singluar
>
>Alan Altmark
>z/VM Development
>IBM Endicott
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip
Mark Zelden
>
>And, MSU's are just as bad, these days.
>
It's bad to belong to a MSU? :-) ITYM MSUs.
Friday or not... can 'ya all just get over it. This is an informal
list, not a college english class.
--
Mark Zelden
Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead
Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group
mailto: mark....@zurichna.com
z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/
Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html
Ted MacNEIL
My point about MIPS/MSU (while I did digress, and for that I appologise), is that they are NOT good metrics!
There aren't any good ones, anymore.
LSPR is haphazard.
Gartner is a joke!
Phil admits that his MIPS charts are worth what you pay for.
And, our management is paying software charges based on faulty figures.
No other industry would accept that.
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
Patrick O'Keefe
>>OBVIOUSLY, MIPS is singluar, even it it isn't a noun. It is an
adjective.
>
>Is it an adjective in the sentence:
>
>The processor is/has 200 MIPS?
>...
Sorry, but he (or somebody) invoked the Humpty Dumpty rule, and once a
word has been dumptied standard rules no longer apply. He probably has
some adjective use for MIPS (or MIP) in mind and even have a definition
for it.
Hmm. It's more Fridayish than usual today.
Pat O'Keefe
Phil
Charles Mills wrote:
> zPad Base System: ... Full S/390 capability, including ESA/390 Features for
> VSE/ESA, VM/ESA, z/VM and Z/OS and 64 bit zSeries support, IBM Denier nylon
> carry case.
Cute, but it doesn't say 64bit z/VM or 64bit z/OS. Maybe you can run
64bit zLinux. Wait, you can do that with hercules.
DASD...@ibm-main.lst
since I had never heard of FLEX-ES before. But after seeing 50 new ones
added yesterday, I decided to read one. Sure enough - more pedantic off-topic
nonsense.
Where is the thread killer when we need it most?
Bill Fairchild
Ted MacNEIL
In general, it is NOT!
FLEX-ES is important for the developer who cannot afford to by a z, including the environmentals.
You should read the entire thread, not a couple of the digressions, before making your self-righteous judgement!
When in doubt.
PANIC!!
Eric N. Bielefeld
There were several posts that strayed off of the topic, but if you read at
least the first post on this topic, I think you'll find this very on topic.
Flex-ES is a PC that is fitted with special software so it can run the MVS
operating system. It is also fully licensed by IBM, which unfortuneatly
Hercules is not. It allows developers to run z/OS at a cost that they can
afford. There are also many smaller companies who can get a whole system
for a price they can afford, since I believe from previous discussion that
the smallest z box starts around $100K.
This topic gripes me in that I am currently unemployed. If IBM is going to
kill off a platform that small developers use, eventually the only companies
besides IBM to get software for the mainframe will be a few like CA and
Compuware, who can afford big boxes. It just seems very short sited of IBM
to not renew licensing for the Flex-ES box.
Eric Bielefeld
Sr. z/OS Systems Programmer
Milwaukee Wisconsin
414-475-7434
>I ignored almost all of these posts about a letter to the FLEX-ES Community
Phil Payne
If the hardware (processor) were free it would make little difference.
"As as predicted last year, the entry point for current hardware is now the 2066-0A1 at 80
MIPS - the 40 MIPS 2066-0E1 being non-viable because of the maintenance charges on the
mandatory IFL. The 2066-0E1 and 0A1 are too powerful for most of the users being orphaned
this year - the moratorium on higher software charges applies only to IBM software and is
limited to 48 months; enough time, perhaps, to get off the platform. These IBM customers need
a system of appropriate size - even if given as a gift, a larger system can bankrupt a small
company with its software costs."
http://www.isham-reseach.co.uk/low_end_s390_2003.html - 20 January 2003.
Not the first time I said it, either.
I have to say I find such posts insulting. Does anyone really believe we can be fooled so
easily? Most of IBM's "pricing initiatives" over the last decade or so have been disingenuous
at best. One example is the regular "10% technology benefit" in MSU/MIPS in every generation,
because of course it makes damn all difference given the degressive pricing model.
The bizarre thing is that some of executives think they're doing a good job.
--
Phil Payne
http://www.isham-research.co.uk
+44 7833 654 800
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
<OF23EA8841.2970CADD-ON852571...@us.ibm.com>,
on 10/05/2006
at 07:29 PM, Alan Altmark <Alan_A...@US.IBM.COM> said:
>Non-PWD members are not supposed to be in possession of the dongle
>and are not licensed to use z/Architecture on the box even if they
>*do* possess it. (An agreement with IBM to the contrary overrides
>the whole thing, of course.)
I'm confident that any non-NDA licensee for 64 bit z/OS on FLEX-ES is
under an NDA and therefor can't tell us about it.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.
<OF253620F5.C76DD1C6-ON852571...@us.ibm.com>,
on 10/06/2006
at 04:22 PM, Alan Altmark <Alan_A...@US.IBM.COM> said:
>Since it's an acronym, not a word, we get to make up whatever rules
>we want for pluralization.
Pluralization isn't the issue; obfuscation is. If you want to refer
to, e.g., MIPSs, MIPSes, MIPSen, that might look silly but at least it
would be clear. Droping the S that stands for seconds just confuses
people.
>OBVIOUSLY, MIPS is singluar,
But MIP is just peculiar.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Marchant
RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK> wrote:
>> And what about always posting about how cheap the hardware is getting?
>
>If the hardware (processor) were free it would make little difference.
>
Snip!
>
>I have to say I find such posts insulting. Does anyone really
>believe we can be fooled so easily? Most of IBM's "pricing
>initiatives" over the last decade or so have been disingenuous
>at best. One example is the regular "10% technology benefit"
>in MSU/MIPS in every generation, because of course it makes
>damn all difference given the degressive pricing model.
>
>The bizarre thing is that some of executives think they're doing
>a good job.
>
I agree completely. IMHO the only thing that IBM can do to stop the
flight from the mainframe is to make drastic price cuts for the
software. An immediate reduction of 50% coupled with an announcement
that there would be annual reductions of 25% might help stop the
hemmorrhage, but it's not enough to attract new customers.
AFAIK, they don't even publish the software prices any more. IIRC, a
previous employer was paying around $20,000 per month for IBM software
on a 15 MSU 9672-R24. So what would the software cost on a 1500 MSU
box? A million dollars a month? They have completely abandoned the
mainframe, and software costs were a big part of the reason.
The inflation in software costs caused by cheaper and faster hardware
has led all kinds of companies to find every possible alternative to
running on the mainframe.
Tom Marchant
Clark Morris
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Timothy Sipples" <timothy...@ibm-main.lst>
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
>Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:56 AM
>Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> All that said, small mainframe customers (and developers) should keep
>> letting IBM know what they need. IBM generally does respond if it can, as
>> in the examples above.
>>
>
>Tim,
>
>The bottom line is that IBM keeps erecting barriers for small developers to
>get on the platform. That's why I'm still developing on a P390 with z/OS
>V1R4 in 31-bit mode. PWD recently added a $1000/yr license charge for the
>ADCD which was previously free. The FLEX-ES boxes at >10K for a laptop or
> >30K for a server are priced beyond my means. So only the big developers
>will continue to develop for z/OS, everyone else will keep developing for
>NET, Java, and Linux on their commodity PC's for <$1000. If IBM abandons
>FLEX-ES, you won't have any z/OS development happening in any company under
>$1M market cap. Good luck when that happens.
I think the problem is that the IBM mainframe division has never
really liked dealing with small, maybe because a lot of the support
costs are the same regardless of size of shop. I suspect they really
don't know how to handle small in many cases and there are IBM sales
organizations that would much rather deal with i or p series.
>
>Regards,
>Tom Conley
Richards.Bob
Not even close to a million dollars a month. Of course, your mileage and
product mix may vary, but it is less than half of that. Across the last
two machine-type upgrades (z900s to z990s to z9s), a doubling of
installed MSUs, and version upgrades to all major software, etc., there
has been very little increase in my software bill (less than 8%).
Granted, I pay less, as a percentage of installed MSUs, for software
than a much smaller shop. So shoot me. But IBM could have done nothing
over the last four years and my bill would be closer to your original
estimate. I, for one, appreciated the two technology benefit price
discounts.
I do agree, however, that there needs to be something done at the low
end to keep and attract new customers. Just don't throw the baby out
with the bath water.
As for TCO on other platforms, gimme a break. I've seen enough not to be
fooled again.
Bob Richards
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:16 AM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]
DASD...@ibm-main.lst
In a message dated 10/9/2006 7:48:20 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
cfmp...@NS.SYMPATICO.CA writes:
>I think the problem is that the IBM mainframe division has never
>really liked dealing with small, maybe because a lot of the support
>costs are the same regardless of size of shop. I suspect they really
>don't know how to handle small in many cases and there are IBM sales
>organizations that would much rather deal with i or p series.
Anecdotal evidence:
In 1996 I ordered a P/390 from IBM. I was told that since my one-man
business did not have an established track record with IBM's accounts receivable
department, I would have to pay the full amount before they would ship the
system to me. I called the salesman and left a msg on his tape recorder - where
do I mail the check and what is the exact amount? After about a week with no
reply from him I called his tape recorder and left another message,
screaming things like "Your company is still way too large. A lot more of you need
to be downsized, perhaps starting with you. Where in the hell do I send this
check?" I finally talked with someone on the bottom of the food chain in the
shipping department who told me "Send the check to the return address on the
shipping label inside the box we ship it in. We're shipping it now. No
worries." Too large. Wrong focus. Small customers be damned. I never
received a call back from the sales jerk.
When it arrived I had the JES2 WAITING FOR WORK message in 30 minutes after
I started unpacking it. And I was following the instructions very slowly and
deliberately. An excellent product. A ***[expletive deleted]*** sales
force.
Bill Fairchild
Tom Marchant
wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Not even close to a million dollars a month. Of course, your mileage and
>product mix may vary, but it is less than half of that. Across the last
>two machine-type upgrades (z900s to z990s to z9s), a doubling of
>installed MSUs, and version upgrades to all major software, etc., there
>has been very little increase in my software bill (less than 8%).
>
Thanks, Bob. I'll guess that "Less than half of that" means more
than a third of a million dollars a month. Still a big nut.
As I mentioned, I couldn't find current pricing information.
Maybe I ahould have kept my big mouth shut. Still, I wonder:
Is the growth in the mainframe at your shop on par with the
growth in other platforms? If not, I would consider that to
be a net loss for the mainframe. It's not something that I
like to see.
>
>As for TCO on other platforms, gimme a break. I've seen enough not to be
>fooled again.
I agree. I don't think I said that other platforms have lower TCO.
I did find it interesting though, when I read the last TCO report
that IBM had posted on their web site a couple of years ago thet
the total cost of the PC network that everyone uses to connect to
the mainframe was not included.
Tom Marchant
Richards.Bob
Growth on other platforms? Suffice it to say, the mainframe is the model
citizen on this discussion. IBM's print ads have made fun of servers
taking over the datacenter and they suggest their blade centers. In my
case, THE BLADE racks have taken over. The power company must love us!
<no grin here>
You did not mention TCO on other platforms. You mentioned migration to
them. I took the liberty of pointing out the fallacy that most companies
fall into when they do that...that their TCO will be lower. That is a
bunch of bull.
As for network costs, I am not qualified to really comment. But being a
bank with lots of branches, I presume those costs would be there
regardless.
Bob Richards
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@ibm-main.lst
Behalf Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 9:24 AM
To: IBM-...@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW:A Letter To The FLEX-ES Community
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Seeing Beyond Money is a service mark of SunTrust Banks, Inc.
[ST:XCL]