IBM Rational Developer for System z
McKown, John
zPDT development environment for MSRP of US $5,670.00 to run z/OS, compilers (COBOL, PL/I, HLASM, C/C++), DB2, IMS, and CICS/TS on an x86. But it says it is an "add-on feature" to IBM Rational Developer for System z with Java or IBM Rational Developer for System z with EGL. And I don't know how much that costs.
--
John McKown
Systems Engineer IV
IT
Administrative Services Group
HealthMarkets(r)
9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
(817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell
john....@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Shane Ginnane
offered in all regions, or just the 'states ?.
Queries regarding a zPDT (original - er "classic", er maybe we should be calling it "legacy"
now .... ?) were met with a flat *NO* in Aus.
Shane ...
On Fri, Jun 11th, 2010 at 2:40 AM, "McKown, John" wrote:
> http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/unit_test.html
>
> zPDT development environment for MSRP of US $5,670.00 to run z/OS,
> compilers (COBOL, PL/I, HLASM, C/C++), DB2, IMS, and CICS/TS on an
> x86. But it says it is an "add-on feature" to IBM Rational Developer
> for System z with Java or IBM Rational Developer for System z with
> EGL. And I don't know how much that costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Harminc
> I don't know where John got the pricing (I didn't look too deeply), but I wonder if this is to be
> offered in all regions, or just the 'states ?.
> Queries regarding a zPDT (original - er "classic", er maybe we should be calling it "legacy"
> now .... ?) were met with a flat *NO* in Aus.
The big non technical difference is that the original zPDT is strictly
for Partnerworld members, but this new offering seems to be directed
at regular customers.
And yet again IBM is trying to prescribe in ever more detail what kind
of computing you can do on your system. Sure wouldn't want any of that
"robust development" to happen on this box...
I'd want to read the fine print very carefully - for example, how long
do those z/OS licences last, and what does it mean when they say "The
Rational Developer for System z Unit Test environment requires a copy
of either Rational Developer for System z with EGL or Rational
Developer for System z with Java to install and operate for each
user."?
Anyway - so far this is the closest to a "hobbyist" system IBM has to
offer. I wonder if just anyone can order one, i.e. do you have to have
existing Real Iron?
Tony H.
zMan
rPDT (no, I don't think that's the official name, but it works here). And
no, I have no idea how they decide that you've done a "production compile"!
--
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
john gilmore
| And yet again IBM is trying to prescribe in ever more
| detail what kind of computing you can do on your
| system.
I do not think that is quite right. I don't think the intrusiveness is intended. It is a byproduct.
What it seems to me that IBM is trying to do is to provide lower-cost mechanisms for developing and running notionally new z/Architecture applications without at the same time compromising its revenue flows from legacy mainframe cash cows. (Many of these new applications turn out, in my experience anyway, to be the same old ill-conceived and badly written COBOL applications rewritten in equally bad Java.)
None of this is altruistic, but neither is it reprehensible. It is business as usual. IBM has always repudiated the notion that it is an eleemosynary organization.
John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
Bill Fairchild
Bill Fairchild
Software Developer
Rocket Software
275 Grove Street * Newton, MA 02466-2272 * USA
Tel: +1.617.614.4503 * Mobile: +1.508.341.1715
Email: bi...@mainstar.com
Web: www.rocketsoftware.com
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of john gilmore
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:27 PM
To: IBM-...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM Rational Developer for System z
... It is business as usual. IBM has always repudiated the notion that it is an eleemosynary organization.
John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA
Tony Harminc
> Tony Harminc wrote:
>
> | And yet again IBM is trying to prescribe in ever more
> | detail what kind of computing you can do on your system.
>
> I do not think that is quite right. I don't think the intrusiveness is intended. It is a byproduct.
I agree. Nonetheless I find the increased intrusiveness annoying, and
fear the inevitable second order effects.
> What it seems to me that IBM is trying to do is to provide lower-cost mechanisms for developing and running notionally new z/Architecture applications without at the same time compromising its revenue flows from legacy mainframe cash cows.
Certainly. This is the much discussed market segmentation -- seen most
famously in airline ticket prices -- on which business school case
studies abound. Like most customers/victims of such segmentation, no
matter how rational I find it, I am irritated far beyond that rational
view.
> (Many of these new applications turn out, in my experience anyway, to be the same old ill-conceived and badly written COBOL applications rewritten in equally bad Java.)
(Many of them use very much more CPU time, as well, which may negate
the newly cheaper machines. But I digress...)
> None of this is altruistic, but neither is it reprehensible. It is business as usual. IBM has always repudiated the notion that it is an eleemosynary organization.
IBM, like all large business corporations, is a psychopath. The claim
sounds inflamatory, but it is neither new nor unreasonable, and is
something all of us who've worked for a large corporation have known
in some sense for all our working lives.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/oct/24/politics.money
(Which of course says nothing about the many IBMers I have known over
the decades who are nice, ordinary, friendly and helpful individuals.)
But IBM's "business as usual" inevitably involves unpleasant methods
to enforce their business models. Being specific and intrusive about
the workloads that may be run on a particular system is perhaps better
than failing to specify, relying on inadequate technical measures to
enforce the segmentation, and then suing providers of services that
allow working around the technology. It is all indeed a byproduct, but
one that is unlikely to go away.
Tony H.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> None of this is altruistic, but neither is it reprehensible. It is
> business as usual. IBM has always repudiated the notion that it is an
> eleemosynary organization.
recent post in a.f.c.
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010j.html#34 Idiotic progrmaming style edicts
in the 60s, most systems were leases and monthly charges were based on
number of shifts recorded by the system meter. the system meter would
run whenever there the processor and/or i/o was active ... and would
continue to coast for 400milliseconds after everything had gone quiet
(i.e. everything had to be quiet for at least 400milliseconds before the
system meter actually stopped).
one of the challenges for cp67 use in 7x24 operation for online
commercial timesharing service bureaus was figuring out an i/o
programming hack for terminal connections and dialup so that system was
available for incoming characters/connections but the system meter
wouldn't being running if nothing was actually happening (commercial
timesharing service bureaus recovered their operational expenses from
use charges ... but encouraging offshift use had to leave system
available 7x24 ... but also minimize operational expenses ... like
"system meter" ... during those periods when useage tended to be low;
another area of reducing off-shift expenses was drastically
reducing/eliminating requirement for human operator).
however, the pok favorite son operating system had something that would
wakeup every 400milliseconds, even when nothing else was going on (this
continued long after customers had been converted to purchased systems);
aka the only way to stop the system meter would be to manually push the
STOP buttom (or shutdown).
misc. past posts mentioning virtual machine based online commercial
timesharing service bureaus
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#timeshare
this has some overlap with recent thread mentioning that those
commercial operations also needed fairly high level of security
... since there was a lot of open use ... even from fierce business
competitors using the same machine concurrently.
--
42yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
john gilmore
| I agree. Nonetheless I find the increasing intrusiveness
| annoying and fear the inevitable second order effects.
This "concession" brings us into all but complete substantive agreement. This intrusiveness is annoying, not least because it will will not achieve its objective.
Our agreement does not, however, encompass some of Tony's terminology. I do not really think it is appropriate to describe IBM as psychopathic, i.e., as exhibiting psychological pathology. It is a corporation not a person; and it is seldom helpful to apply terminology devised to describe human behavior to corporate behavior. (The fiction that corporations are "legal persons" has had many unfortunate consequences, not least the recent Supreme Court decision that their freedom of speech is abridged when their [election] campaign contributions are regulated.)
Tony's other point, that litigation is no proper remedy for technical inadequacy, is a very important one. If IBM wishes to pursue some market-segmentation objective by limiting the classes of work that can be done by a Ziip or Zaap, let it do so using the technical means at its disposal. Even more important, let it seek further technical remedies for the exposed inadequacies of these technical means.
In particular, to sue a small organization that succeeds in circumventing these means--assuming always that no breach of trust, violation of an NDA or the like, is involved---is unworthy, even ridiculous.
It should have been obvious at the outset that such attempts would be made, and a scheme or schemes that lent themselves to penetration should have been rejected out of hand and/or replaced once it had been penetrated.
An encryption scheme is an obvious and appropriate analogue. One that does not provide secure communications is replaced by a better one; and the alternatiive of attempting to protect, i.e., avoid replacing, a blown one using lawsuits or prosecutions would be ludicrously misconceived.
John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
Timothy Sipples
>The part that's not clear to me is that the Rational Developer for
>System z Unit Test environment clearly supports multiple users, but it
>sounds as though each user must have a separately licensed copy of the
>prereq Rational Developer for System z. Is this a technical or a
>licensing requirement? If it's a technical requirement, and I don't
>need the function of Rational Developer for System z, then can I run
>multiple users with just one licence (or none)? If it's a licensing
>requirement, then are the Ts&Cs broken instantly if, for example, a
>TSO user logs on for a few seconds to check the status of a job, but
>the first user hasn't logged off yet? And can multiple users remotely
>submit batch jobs to run at the same time without having a local "
>Rational Developer for System z" licence?
I don't think this is complicated, but perhaps I'm missing your question.
According to what I'm reading, if you want to access Rational Developer for
System z Unit Test feature, these two things (among others) must be true:
1. You must have a license for Rational Developer for System z (and the
Unit Test feature). If it's technically possible to access the Unit Test
feature without a license, that's immaterial: you must have a license. Time
of day, minute in the hour, and whether you prefer baseball or cricket do
not matter: you must have a license.
2. When you access the Unit Test feature, you may only do so for specific
permitted purposes. Running your company's weekly payroll is not one of
those permitted purposes. Code changes and unit test for that payroll
application probably are permitted.
Just read the announcement letter and ask your IBM representative (in
writing) if you still have questions. (But is this hard? I don't think so.)
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
Resident Architect (Based in Singapore)
STG Value Creation and Complex Deals Team
IBM Growth Markets
E-Mail: timothy...@us.ibm.com
Dave
into the "Ready to Buy" link to see RDz UT pricing. RDz Unit Test
starts at $1.8k USD for the "Standard" option for a 1 yr licnese or
$4k USD for a perpetual license with 1 yr Service and Support.
Minimal cost for a 1 year (term) license is $4540 USD (RDz EGL + RDz
UT)
On Jun 10, 12:41 pm, John.McK...@HEALTHMARKETS.COM (McKown, John)
wrote:
> http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/unit_test.html
>
> zPDTdevelopment environment for MSRP of US $5,670.00 to run z/OS, compilers (COBOL, PL/I, HLASM, C/C++), DB2, IMS, and CICS/TS on an x86. But it says it is an "add-on feature" to IBM Rational Developer for System z with Java or IBM Rational Developer for System z with EGL. And I don't know how much that costs.
>
> --
> John McKown
> Systems Engineer IV
> IT
>
> Administrative Services Group
>
> HealthMarkets(r)
>
> 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010
> (817) 255-3225 phone * (817)-961-6183 cell
> john.mck...@healthmarkets.com *www.HealthMarkets.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Dave
sells into
On Jun 11, 2:14 am, ibm-m...@TPG.COM.AU (Shane Ginnane) wrote:
> I don't know where John got the pricing (I didn't look too deeply), but I wonder if this is to be
> offered in all regions, or just the 'states ?.
> Queries regarding azPDT(original - er "classic", er maybe we should be calling it "legacy"
> now .... ?) were met with a flat *NO* in Aus.
>
> Shane ...
>
> On Fri, Jun 11th, 2010 at 2:40 AM, "McKown, John" wrote:
> >http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/unit_test.html
>
> >zPDTdevelopment environment for MSRP of US $5,670.00 to run z/OS,
> > compilers (COBOL, PL/I, HLASM, C/C++), DB2, IMS, and CICS/TS on an
> > x86. But it says it is an "add-on feature" to IBM Rational Developer
> > for System z with Java or IBM Rational Developer for System z with
> > EGL. And I don't know how much that costs.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Tony Harminc
> Tony Harminc writes:
>>The part that's not clear to me is that the Rational Developer for
>>System z Unit Test environment clearly supports multiple users, but it
>>sounds as though each user must have a separately licensed copy of the
>>prereq Rational Developer for System z. Is this a technical or a
>>licensing requirement? If it's a technical requirement, and I don't
>>need the function of Rational Developer for System z, then can I run
>>multiple users with just one licence (or none)? If it's a licensing
>>requirement, then are the Ts&Cs broken instantly if, for example, a
>>TSO user logs on for a few seconds to check the status of a job, but
>>the first user hasn't logged off yet? And can multiple users remotely
>>submit batch jobs to run at the same time without having a local "
>>Rational Developer for System z" licence?
>
> I don't think this is complicated, but perhaps I'm missing your question.
Let me try again with a detailed example:
Suppose I have three developers, Alice, Bob, and Carol, and they all
want to use a single Intel machine configured with the minimum of
whatever it takes to be properly licensed to do z/OS development and
testing. (For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that none of
the activities crosses the line into production work of any kind,
however vaguely that may be defined.) They have no interest in Windows
desktop features or similar bells & whistles supplied with any of the
Rational products; they want to logon to TSO using TN3270 and edit,
compile, and test their programs, written in, say PL/I and assembler.
They all want to use this single machine at the same time, which is
clearly a supported thing to do. "The IBM Rational Developer for
System z Unit Test environment can be assigned to a single developer
in a small system configuration, or can support small-scale team
environment on a server platform."
How many licences for the prerequisite IBM Rational Developer for
System z with EGL or IBM Rational Developer for System z with Java are
required? I assume three, even though they will sit on the shelf.
Unless there's a component of these prereq products that has to be
installed on the server.
How many licences for IBM Rational Developer for System z Unit Test
(Standard or Specialty) are required? Three more?
How many 1091 hardware keys (dongles) are required? Just one for the
single machine?
What defines a "user" of the z/OS system? If a fourth developer, Don,
who is not licensed for any of these Rational products on any
platform, submits a batch compile job to z/OS using FTP from his
Windows desktop, is he a user? What if Carol's compile job output is
routed (via RJE) to Don's desktop so he can look at it? What if Eve,
the system programmer, who does no application development or testing,
needs to logon to check or correct a z/OS problem. Does she need a
licence for the Rational products?
Are the z/OS components and features supported? The announcement seems
to say they are and they aren't.
"The included IBM software products are provided for development
purposes only on an as-is basis. No support is provided for the
included software."
" IBM includes one year of Software Subscription and Support (also
referred to as Software Maintenance) with each program license
acquired for the System z Personal Development Toolkit portion of the
offering, which creates the virtual System z environment." If the
first statement is correct, how does one get support for z/OS
problems? Is it necessary to reproduce the problem on a Real machine?
> According to what I'm reading, if you want to access Rational Developer for
> System z Unit Test feature, these two things (among others) must be true:
>
> 1. You must have a license for Rational Developer for System z (and the
> Unit Test feature). If it's technically possible to access the Unit Test
> feature without a license, that's immaterial: you must have a license. Time
> of day, minute in the hour, and whether you prefer baseball or cricket do
> not matter: you must have a license.
Oh come on - I'm not suggesting any improper use; I'm trying to find
out how many licences for what components are required and what *is*
proper use.
> 2. When you access the Unit Test feature, you may only do so for specific
> permitted purposes. Running your company's weekly payroll is not one of
> those permitted purposes. Code changes and unit test for that payroll
> application probably are permitted.
Sure - I get the general idea, however ill-specified. But might it
even be the case that only development based on actually using the
desktop portion of IBM Rational Developer for System z with EGL or IBM
Rational Developer for System z with Java is permitted? GUI good -
green-screen bad?
> Just read the announcement letter and ask your IBM representative (in
> writing) if you still have questions. (But is this hard? I don't think so.)
I've been reading IBM announcement letters and licence agreements for
over 30 years, and this is one of the least clear I've encountered.
Tony H.
Timothy Sipples
IBM representative." However, my personal assessment follows.
Tony Harminc writes:
>Suppose I have three developers, Alice, Bob, and Carol, and they all
>want to use a single Intel machine configured with the minimum of
>whatever it takes to be properly licensed to do z/OS development and
>testing. (For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that none of
>the activities crosses the line into production work of any kind,
>however vaguely that may be defined.)
It's not vague at all, in my opinion. It's one of the clearer explanations
of permitted uses I've seen, actually.
>They have no interest in Windows
>desktop features or similar bells & whistles supplied with any of the
>Rational products; they want to logon to TSO using TN3270 and edit,
>compile, and test their programs, written in, say PL/I and assembler.
>They all want to use this single machine at the same time, which is
>clearly a supported thing to do. "The IBM Rational Developer for
>System z Unit Test environment can be assigned to a single developer
>in a small system configuration, or can support small-scale team
>environment on a server platform."
>
>How many licences for the prerequisite IBM Rational Developer for
>System z with EGL or IBM Rational Developer for System z with Java are
>required? I assume three, even though they will sit on the shelf.
>Unless there's a component of these prereq products that has to be
>installed on the server.
Yes, three.
>How many licences for IBM Rational Developer for System z Unit Test
>(Standard or Specialty) are required? Three more?
Yes. Three users, three licenses. (And there's some information in there
about "sessions" which is worth reading.)
>How many 1091 hardware keys (dongles) are required? Just one for the
>single machine?
Yes, if you have only one machine then one 1091 hardware key would be
sufficient. That's one of the reasons there's a separate part number for
the hardware key.
>What defines a "user" of the z/OS system? If a fourth developer, Don,
>who is not licensed for any of these Rational products on any
>platform, submits a batch compile job to z/OS using FTP from his
>Windows desktop, is he a user?
Of course! Don also needs a Windows license.
>What if Carol's compile job output is
>routed (via RJE) to Don's desktop so he can look at it? What if Eve,
>the system programmer, who does no application development or testing,
>needs to logon to check or correct a z/OS problem. Does she need a
>licence for the Rational products?
Assuming it's a permitted use, Don would need licenses to both RDz and RDz
Unit Test.
Eve would certainly need a license for the Rational products if a permitted
use. But "logon to check or correct a z/OS problem"? If (for example) she's
trying to debug a production problem or pre-production test problem on her
company's mainframe, that would not be a permitted use of RDz Unit Test,
and she would need to do that work solely on her company's mainframe (in a
test LPAR, presumably, with commercially licensed z/OS).
The product is called Rational Developer for System z Unit Test feature,
not RDz General Purpose Mainframe feature. In particular, it's not to be
used for all testing or even for most testing. I would find it hard to
imagine that the company's system programmers would be accessing RDz Unit
Test at all. That's part of the point of the product, actually. Some
organizations have built up so much bureaucratic "baggage" that application
developers can't get their jobs done as effectively as they should. It's
not the technology's fault -- there's no technical impediment to letting
application development teams manage at least a subset of development LPAR
(s) -- but RDz Unit Test feature offers another option for such
organizations which, frankly, are at least a little dysfunctional. (And an
option for perfectly well-organized, savvy organizations, too.)
That said, if Eve the system programmer accesses RDz Unit Test in order
(for example) to set up and/or configure Alice/Bob/Carol/Don's unit test
environment, yes, Eve would need licenses for both RDz and RDz Unit Test.
She's a user. In software licensing there's no such thing as smoking but
not inhaling. :-)
But let's add in Maude now. Maude provides z/OS help desk support at Eve's
company. If Alice calls Maude and asks for help, and Maude provides
telephone support, does Maude need a license? No. She's not accessing RDz
Unit Test, she's not using it, she doesn't have a session to it -- she
doesn't need a license. If Maude stands over Alice's shoulder, watches, and
verbally suggests courses of action as Alice works (Alice's permitted
uses), does Maude need a license? Still no. If Maude yanks the keyboard
from Alice's hands and starts typing into TSO (on RDz Unit Test), does
Maude need a license? Yes.
If Maude then goes to Starbucks, buys a decaf latte, turns on her iPad,
and... Oh, never mind. :-)
>Are the z/OS components and features supported? The announcement seems
>to say they are and they aren't.
>"The included IBM software products are provided for development
>purposes only on an as-is basis. No support is provided for the
>included software."
>" IBM includes one year of Software Subscription and Support (also
>referred to as Software Maintenance) with each program license
>acquired for the System z Personal Development Toolkit portion of the
>offering, which creates the virtual System z environment." If the
>first statement is correct, how does one get support for z/OS
>problems? Is it necessary to reproduce the problem on a Real machine?
There is no support provided with RDz Unit Test for z/OS or for any of the
products atop z/OS. Yes, if you have a z/OS problem and want to open a PMR
you need a commercial z/OS license (not only an RDz Unit Test license).
Subscription & Support has a particular meaning for RDz Unit Test.
Subscription means that, as/if IBM introduces new versions and releases of
RDz Unit Test (which would presumably include new z/OS images -- I think
that's a safe bet), you are entitled to receive them as long as you
maintain active Subscription. Support means that you can open PMRs on RDz
Unit Test "container" issues. For example, if you have trouble installing
RDz Unit Test, you can open a PMR. But if you're trying to figure out why
your JCL isn't running in the Unit Test environment, no, that's not
eligible for a PMR.
>Oh come on - I'm not suggesting any improper use; I'm trying to find
>out how many licences for what components are required and what *is*
>proper use.
I think the language is pretty darn clear and rather common throughout the
IT industry. Licensing concepts like "user" and "permitted uses" certainly
are not new, especially for application development.
>Sure - I get the general idea, however ill-specified. But might it
>even be the case that only development based on actually using the
>desktop portion of IBM Rational Developer for System z with EGL or IBM
>Rational Developer for System z with Java is permitted? GUI good -
>green-screen bad?
Does it say that? RDz provides (among many other features) a 3270 terminal
emulator, by the way.
>I've been reading IBM announcement letters and licence agreements for
>over 30 years, and this is one of the least clear I've encountered.
We certainly disagree on that.
I'd like to make another editorial comment at this point. I suppose we
could have a 30+ message dialog about whether Boris, George, and Melissa
also need licenses. (Answer: if you're asking, yes, almost certainly they
do. That's easy.) However, let's step back for a moment and pause to
reflect on this product. I say, "Bravo, IBM." A lot of people have been
asking for something like this, and I'm very glad to see it. Sure, RDz Unit
Test is not for everybody, but it is for many. RDz Unit Test feature --
along with other steps IBM has taken recently -- are all very helpful in
making it easier, faster, and more affordable to develop on and for z/OS.
That's goodness, unambiguously.
- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
Resident Architect (Based in Singapore)
STG Value Creation and Complex Deals Team
IBM Growth Markets
E-Mail: timothy...@us.ibm.com
Timothy Sipples
>And you have Camouflage (datamasking.com) , 1st on Gartner and forrester.
Maybe. Camouflage is very late to the z/OS party (but much better late than
never, of course):
http://www.datamasking.com/pressreleases.aspx?id=44
Gartner has a "magic quadrant" reporting methodology, not a ranking per se.
And I can't find a relevant Gartner report anyhow. Here's Camouflage's most
recent press release that I can find that mentions Gartner:
http://www.datamasking.com/PressReleases.aspx?id=19
There's nothing mentioned about "first" or anything about a magic quadrant
(or particular positioning).
Likewise, Camouflage itself says only it's a "top 5" Forrester vendor:
http://www.datamasking.com/PressReleases.aspx?id=40
I searched Datamasking.com (both in the search box on the Web site itself
and via Google targeted search), and I can't find anything relevant
concerning Gartner or Forrester.
Camouflage might be fantastic stuff -- I don't know -- but I wasn't able to
validate a "1st on Gartner and forrester" claim.
DIANE BLAUW
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 13:46:16 -0400
From: Donald Johnson <dej...@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Cobol routine to convert TEXT to displayable HEX
Well, here is what I decided to use. I broke my text field into 100-byte
segments (based on report requirements), and converted them into a vertical
alignment (like issuing the HEX ISPF command) and kept it within the program
for simplicity.
Here is the code snippet (working-storage section fields (other than the
input text), and the Procedure statements:
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7-+
* CONVERT TEXT TO HEX WORK FIELDS
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7-+
05 WS-TXT-SUB PIC S9(04) VALUE ZERO COMP.
05 WS-ZON-SUB PIC S9(04) VALUE ZERO COMP.
05 WS-DIG-SUB PIC S9(04) VALUE ZERO COMP.
05 WS-CONV-BYTE-NUM.
10 FILLER PIC X(01) VALUE LOW-VALUES.
10 WS-CONV-BYTE PIC X(01).
05 WS-CONV-NUM REDEFINES WS-CONV-BYTE-NUM
PIC 9(04) COMP.
05 WS-CONV-ZONE PIC X(100) VALUE SPACE.
05 WS-CONV-DIGT PIC X(100) VALUE SPACE.
05 WS-HEX-CHARS PIC X(16) VALUE '0123456789ABCDEF'.
05 FILLER REDEFINES WS-HEX-CHARS.
10 WS-X PIC X(01) OCCURS 16 TIMES.
* CONVERT TEXT TO HEX FROM DETAIL LINE DATA
INITIALIZE WS-CONV-ZONES
WS-CONV-DIGTS
PERFORM VARYING WS-TXT-SUB FROM 1 BY 1
UNTIL WS-TXT-SUB GREATER 100
MOVE <<SOURCE FIELD>> (WS-TXT-SUB : 1) TO WS-CONV-BYTE
COMPUTE WS-DIVIDE-RESULT = WS-CONV-NUM / 16
COMPUTE WS-REMAINDER = WS-REMAINDER * 16
COMPUTE WS-ZON-SUB = WS-QUOTIENT
COMPUTE WS-DIG-SUB =
WS-REMAINDER
MOVE WS-X(WS-ZON-SUB + 1) TO WS-CONV-ZONE(WS-TXT-SUB:1)
MOVE WS-X(WS-DIG-SUB + 1) TO WS-CONV-DIGT(WS-TXT-SUB:1)
END-PERFORM.
An alternate to the four COMPUTE statements is:
COMPUTE WS-ZON-SUB =
FUNCTION INTEGER-PART (WS-CONV-NUM / 16)
COMPUTE WS-DIG-SUB =
FUNCTION REM (WS-CONV-NUM 16)
Howvever, multiple runs of a test program running between 100,000 and
1,000,000 iterations of a process to convert all 256 possibilities showed
the FUNCTION calls took between 25 and 30% more TCB time, while they used
virtually the same amount of memory.
I hope others can benefit from this and can use this process.
Thanks to all for your help!
* Don *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:51:00 -0400
From: WalterR <ws...@VERIZON.NET>
Subject: Re: Cobol routine to convert TEXT to displayable HEX
Donald Johnson wrote:
> Hi guys and gals!
>
> Does anyone have a routine (COBOL preferable) that converts a standard text
> field into its HEX values?
>
> For example, if I have a field 'BEFORE,' I want to be able to translate it
> to
> CCCDDC
> 256695
>
> or to C2C5C6D6D9C5.
>
> My ultimate goal is the first choice (vertical format), but I can deal with
> either. I will code this in my COBOL program, so that is why COBOL...I can
> do it in other places easily, but I am trying to create a model program that
> is self contained.
>
> Thanks in advance!
> * Don *
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
Since COBOL was (only) preferable, maybe a PL/I example would be useful
too.
DCL STR CHAR(13);
DCL HEXV CHAR(99)VAR;
DCL # BIN(31)FIXED;
STR = 'IBM MAIN LIST'; PUT SKIP DATA(STR);
HEXV = HEX2(STR); /* top line concatenated left of bottom line */
# = LENGTH(HEXV)/2; /* always even */
PUT SKIP LIST(SUBSTR(HEXV,1,#)); /* upper */
PUT SKIP LIST(SUBSTR(HEXV,#+1)); /* lower */
HEX2: /* display hex in double-line (dump) format */
PROCEDURE(STR@) RETURNS(CHAR(99)VAR); /* 99? */
DCL STR@ CHAR(*) NONASGN;
DCL(ADDR,*HEXIMAGE*,LENGTH,STRING)BUILTIN;
DCL HEXIMAGE_STR CHAR(LENGTH(STR@)*2)
,1 HEX_STR(LENGTH(STR@)) DEFINED(HEXIMAGE_STR)
,2 HEX_STR1 CHAR(1)
,2 HEX_STR2 CHAR(1);
HEXIMAGE_STR = *HEXIMAGE*(ADDR(STR@),LENGTH(STR@));
RETURN(STRING(HEX_STR(*).HEX_STR1)|| /* must split afterwards */
STRING(HEX_STR(*).HEX_STR2));
END HEX2;
Result:
STR='IBM MAIN LIST';
CCD4DCCD4DCEE
9240419503923
Walter Rue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Itschak Mugzach
This is a fact that I can't recall where I've seen. A Gartner/Forrester
customer can get an analyst to speak with and find out himself.
They might entered late on z/os, but they are pure Java: No CPU cost if you
have zAAP, so they are far away from older solutions running on z/os and
make use of a CP and influence TCO. I've seen few sites that stepped back
from datamasking projects when they discovered that at the end of every
night they will have to mask all data copied to dev (and copy them all every
day!).
ITschak
Phil Smith
>They might entered late on z/os, but they are pure Java: No CPU cost if you
>have zAAP, so they are far away from older solutions running on z/os and
>make use of a CP and influence TCO. I've seen few sites that stepped back
>from datamasking projects when they discovered that at the end of every
>night they will have to mask all data copied to dev (and copy them all every
>day!).
Of course, if you just use Voltage SecureData to encrypt the *production* data *once*, you don't have this problem...
:-)
--
...phsiii
Phil Smith III
ph...@voltage.com
Voltage Security, Inc.
www.voltage.com
(703) 476-4511 (home office)
(703) 568-6662 (cell)
Itschak Mugzach
minimal as well...
ITschak
Mike W Stayton
System z Personal Development Tool: Volume 1 Introduction and Reference,
SG24-7721-01
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247721.html?Open
System z Personal Development Tool: Volume 2 Installation and Basic Use,
SG24-7722-01
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247722.html?Open
IBM System z Personal Development Tool: Volume 3 Additional Topics,
SG24-7723-01
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg247723.html?Open
Mike Stayton
z/OS Communications Server
m...@us.ibm.com
Tony Harminc
> Please bear in mind that I do not speak for IBM officially, so "ask your
> IBM representative." However, my personal assessment follows.
>
> Tony Harminc writes:
>>Suppose I have three developers, Alice, Bob, and Carol, and they all
>>want to use a single Intel machine configured with the minimum of
>>whatever it takes to be properly licensed to do z/OS development and
>>testing. (For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that none of
>>the activities crosses the line into production work of any kind,
>>however vaguely that may be defined.)
>
> It's not vague at all, in my opinion. It's one of the clearer explanations
> of permitted uses I've seen, actually.
The announcement says "...may not be used for production workloads of
any kind, nor robust development workloads including without
limitation production module builds, pre-production testing, stress
testing, or performance testing." You may think that clear, but I
think it's entirely open to IBM to redefine anything they don't like
to fit in to the exclusion list.
Why IBM wants to base its licensing on what customers choose to use
their hardware and software for, rather than just selling MIPS and
getting out of the way, is an interesting question that isn't likely
to get answered here. It's obvious that it has led to grief in the
past, and doubtless will do so again. Even the airlines don't try to
say "if you are flying on this discounted fare, it is a condition of
carriage that you may not fly to a business meeting, but only for
purposes of personal or family vacation, and only if during your
vacation you do not at any time take a phone call from work". Rather,
they try to add features that appeal to business travellers to the
higher fares, and in various ways make it difficult for them to take
advantage of the lower fares.
> That said, if Eve the system programmer accesses RDz Unit Test in order
> (for example) to set up and/or configure Alice/Bob/Carol/Don's unit test
> environment, yes, Eve would need licenses for both RDz and RDz Unit Test.
> She's a user. In software licensing there's no such thing as smoking but
> not inhaling. :-)
So would she need a separate licence for each machine/dongle in the
shop, or does one cover all her sysprog tasks on each small group's or
individual's machine? I imagine you're going to tell me it's clear...
I also think it's quite unrealistic to think that these machines won't
need sysprog help. IBM has worked hard on dumbing down the sysprog's
job for decades, but the marketing aspect of that has always led the
reality by quite a bit. Your average COBOL (or Java for that matter)
programmer, will not really know what to do when s/he gets an S0C6 in
RACF when submitting that COBOL compile.
> But let's add in Maude now. Maude provides z/OS help desk support at Eve's
> company. If Alice calls Maude and asks for help, and Maude provides
> telephone support, does Maude need a license? No. She's not accessing RDz
> Unit Test, she's not using it, she doesn't have a session to it -- she
> doesn't need a license. If Maude stands over Alice's shoulder, watches, and
> verbally suggests courses of action as Alice works (Alice's permitted
> uses), does Maude need a license? Still no. If Maude yanks the keyboard
> from Alice's hands and starts typing into TSO (on RDz Unit Test), does
> Maude need a license? Yes.
>
> If Maude then goes to Starbucks, buys a decaf latte, turns on her iPad,
> and... Oh, never mind. :-)
Very funny.
> Support means that you can open PMRs on RDz
> Unit Test "container" issues. For example, if you have trouble installing
> RDz Unit Test, you can open a PMR. But if you're trying to figure out why
> your JCL isn't running in the Unit Test environment, no, that's not
> eligible for a PMR.
How about that S0C6 that doesn't happen on the production machine? How
about an MVS integrity exposure?
>>Oh come on - I'm not suggesting any improper use; I'm trying to find
>>out how many licences for what components are required and what *is*
>>proper use.
>
> I think the language is pretty darn clear and rather common throughout the
> IT industry. Licensing concepts like "user" and "permitted uses" certainly
> are not new, especially for application development.
They are quite new to the IBM mainframe world. Licensing "per seat"
has been around for a long time for application software in certain
industries, but this increasingly detailed specification of the nature
of the workloads you can run is new to z/OS.
>>Sure - I get the general idea, however ill-specified. But might it
>>even be the case that only development based on actually using the
>>desktop portion of IBM Rational Developer for System z with EGL or IBM
>>Rational Developer for System z with Java is permitted? GUI good -
>>green-screen bad?
>
> Does it say that?
I don't know if it is trying to say that. You keep telling me it's
clear, but it's not. This is part of the problem of bundling together
unrelated software components. I can easily see IBM coming back to a
customer who leaves the Rational Developer stuff on the shelf and uses
this offering for its access to the underlying zArch emulator, and
saying "you can't do that - you have to use the GUI bells & whistles".
>>I've been reading IBM announcement letters and licence agreements for
>>over 30 years, and this is one of the least clear I've encountered.
>
> We certainly disagree on that.
>
> I'd like to make another editorial comment at this point.
You are not the editor. But feel free to comment.
> I suppose we could have a 30+ message dialog about whether Boris, George, and Melissa
> also need licenses. (Answer: if you're asking, yes, almost certainly they
> do. That's easy.)
It's *not* easy. And it's not particularly helpful to ridicule my
honest effort to understand the complex licensing issues surrounding
this bundled set of products.
> However, let's step back for a moment and pause to
> reflect on this product. I say, "Bravo, IBM." A lot of people have been
> asking for something like this, and I'm very glad to see it.
Well, a lot of people have been asking for a small and affordable
zArch mainframe for a long time. And you will know better than I, of
course, if a lot of people have been asking for a bundled Rational
software/zArch emulator on Intel/z/OS package that's limited to
non-robust development, though I've never heard anyone asking for such
a thing on any of the lists I read.
> Sure, RDz Unit Test is not for everybody, but it is for many. RDz Unit Test feature --
> along with other steps IBM has taken recently -- are all very helpful in
> making it easier, faster, and more affordable to develop on and for z/OS.
> That's goodness, unambiguously.
Finally something I can't argue with. Though it would have a much
higher goodness level if IBM had just made the barebones emulator+z/OS
available without all the bundling and restrictions.
Which reminds me to wonder how Funsoft stock is doing...
Tony H.
Phil Smith
So it's not for hobbyists, but rather sounds like it's for serious shops with serious Rational developers to be able to do some hardcore tinkering.
--
...phsiii
Phil Smith III
ph...@voltage.com
Voltage Security, Inc.
www.voltage.com
(703) 476-4511 (home office)
(703) 568-6662 (cell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------