date:20070518

Re: IBM sees software producing half of profit by 2010

2007-05-18 Thread Bruno Sugliani

On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:28:43 -0500, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

IBM sees software producing half of profit by 2010
EETimes Thu, 17 May 2007 9:16 AM PDT
IBM said it sees software accounting for nearly half of total profit
by 2010, up from about 40 percent last year, as the company shifts
toward more-profitable businesses from lower-margin segments such as
computer hardware.

40 % in 3 years well yes even if i think it is not very optimistic as this
is about what our accounting shows here in my shop  .
We got the annual registered letter for july , and they said 6 % increase 
because of currency fluctuation ( as the euros is so high , it must represent 
15 % or 20 % in dollars and it should have gone down not up ! )
a lot of us will go to db2 v8 or cics 3.x  in mainframe , and this is quite
a lot as well , as the consumption is growing ( cics 3.1 is about 7.5 %
extra , DB2 V8 vs V7 , i do not know yet but i heard numbers ) .
For distributed software , they implemented PVU's because it  is just
impossible to order single core processors on servers nowadays  .
Mainframe Tivoli software is going Full Cap . ( TSM is done , TDS also and i
already got the bill ) 
SAO / Netview new version is also going Full Cap .( i saw the numbers and it
is frightening )
So vWLC is becoming a joke for some products .
I am lucky to have installed zCost to control my consumption  (, i should be
able to control a part of the bill up to my retirement :-)) 3 years ? :-)) 
Bruno
Bruno(dot)sugliani(at)groupemornay(dot)asso(dot)fr
  
 

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Date Time in JCL

2007-05-18 Thread Bruno Sugliani

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:30:52 -0500, Mark Steely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I believe the answer is no and that's what I told the customer, but I
will ask any way. Is there a way to dynamically add the current date and
time to a dataset through JCL ? We are z/OS V1R7.
http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0202L=ibm-mainD=0amp;I=1O=DT=0P=100302
Bruno 
Bruno(dot)sugliani(at)groupemornay(dot)asso(dot)fr

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Date Time in JCL

2007-05-18 Thread Robert Bardos


 However, the issue is that, there is no definitive
 value of current date.

 The issue is more than just current date (and
 current time is worse).

 It all comes down to submission time, conversion time,
 execution time, or system for all variable substitution
 under Batch JCL.

 Which is valid? And, for date/time what happens if you
 do a typrun=hold?

 How do you know if the submission date is what's
 wanted, or execution date?
 What happens if you submit just before midnight?


Naive idea: why not provide system symbols for all of these
(submission time, conversion time, execution time)?  SYSSTIME,
SYSCTIME, SYSETIME?

Robert

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: Top 10 software install gripes

2007-05-18 Thread R.S.

Rick Fochtman wrote:

-snip--
I think everyone agrees that directory should have safe margin for
updates. However the discussion was about magic numbers like 44,45, or
46. Spare directory blocks are obvious, any of the numbers above not.
Despite of discussion noone explained why these numbers (or at least any
of them) are so magic. Hint: fit in the track is absolutely not
reasonable.

unsnip
Why is Fit in the track unreasonable? I regard it as efficient use of
space.

Yes, it *totally* unreasonable. I mean it.
It has nothing to do with efficient use of space. It was proved that rest of the track can be used for members storage.
So, If I need 100 or 200 or 1340 blocks, there is no reason to round it to multiple 44 or 45 or (n*45+44). If I need 20 blocks, there is still no need to round it to 44.

Last, but not least: we talk about efficient use of *fraction of track*. It is simply
*not worth* to discuss. I simply don't care about wasted track in my PDS. Even if I have
100 or 1000 PDSes. All we agreed (any objection?) that directory should be safely
oversized to avoid out-of-directory problems. Usually spare blocks occupy more than
track.

Last but not least: It's funny that people take care about holy numbers, but
there are different religions: some adore 44, others worship 45, others 46, others
n*45+44...

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland

--
BRE Bank SA
ul. Senatorska 18
00-950 Warszawa
www.brebank.pl

Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy
XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego,
nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237

NIP: 526-021-50-88
Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci
opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego
podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003
r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528
z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 118 matches

Mail list logo