Re: reasons why management don't want linux
hello, does anyone know where i can find the download for: suse kernel 2.4.7 SLES-7-PatchCD-1-s390-20020522.iso thanks, steve gear
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
If you have a service contract with SuSE, they should be able to tell you. If you don't have a service contract, you can't get it. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Steve Gear Schneider Technical Services [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux hello, does anyone know where i can find the download for: suse kernel 2.4.7 SLES-7-PatchCD-1-s390-20020522.iso thanks, steve gear
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, David Andrews wrote: On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 06:40, Rob van der Heij wrote: From my experience SuSE is not very responsive either to messages sent to the stated email addresss and their own mailing lists. For what it's worth, Jens Sandmann has been responsive to ME. But he has a suse.COM address and may have been a victim of the U.S. RIF. (Jens? You still there?) My German however is not good enough to bridge that gap. May I suggest babelfish? I've written to many German ISPs and make the effort to translate to German before I mail. I'm sure I must sound pretty inarticulate, but my correspondents always seem to appreciate the effort. Please, not babelfish! ;-)) Of course we do feel comfortable with english, but to be honest, we are not Microsoft with thousands of employees managing customer communication. If we don't respond fast enough, it is not meant to be rude to customers. It mostly depends on the channel the email reaches us. E.g., I grant for responses to mails to [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jens answers [EMAIL PROTECTED] If a mail is sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] about some s390 specialty, it might take a long time until it is redirected to people knowing about S/390. Due to the great demand for S/390 Linux, it might take some days to catch up with responding, but an answer will be provided, definitely. BTW: I did not want to insult anybody, I just wanted to state that SuSE does not monitor this list. -- Kind regards, Joachim Schröder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) SuSE Support Services SuSE Linux AG Tel +49-421-526-233-0 Deutschherrnstr. 15-19 Fax +49-911-74053-489 D-90429 Nuernberg Email[EMAIL PROTECTED] GermanyWWWhttp://www.suse.de === S/390 - IPL the GPL! visit http://s390.suse.de === More info at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
SuSE does _not_ monitor this list, I and one or two collegues of mine have a look at it from time to time, as spare time allows us to do so - therefore we can't correct all misinformation on this list! I find such statements to be massive insults to my intelligence. From my experience SuSE is not very responsive either to messages sent to the stated email addresss and their own mailing lists. This may be as simple as the people feeling uncomfortable in a foreign language. My German however is not good enough to bridge that gap. I found some other Linux for S/390 distributors more responsive and more open, and much easier to work with (and I don't have experience with TurboLinux). Rob
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
From my experience SuSE is not very responsive either to messages sent to the stated email addresss and their own mailing lists. This may be as simple as the people feeling uncomfortable in a foreign language. My German however is not good enough to bridge that gap. I don't expect much in the way of responses. The audience on most mailings lists is self-selecting and all many of crazies can turn up. This was a particular characteristic of the Windows vs OS2 advocacy battles. No one representing a vendor wants to get drawn into an online insult match. The most I would ever expect in the way of an online correction is a pointer to a web page, press release, announcement letter or some such. I certainly wouldn't expect a vendor representative to enter into a discussion. That's a different thing from pretending the groups aren't monitored. I've spent a good part of my career with vendors and work a lot with them today - they certainly do monitor groups like this. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/20: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Fri, 2002-01-25 at 06:40, Rob van der Heij wrote: From my experience SuSE is not very responsive either to messages sent to the stated email addresss and their own mailing lists. For what it's worth, Jens Sandmann has been responsive to ME. But he has a suse.COM address and may have been a victim of the U.S. RIF. (Jens? You still there?) My German however is not good enough to bridge that gap. May I suggest babelfish? I've written to many German ISPs and make the effort to translate to German before I mail. I'm sure I must sound pretty inarticulate, but my correspondents always seem to appreciate the effort. -- David Andrews A. Duda and Sons, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[much OT by now] Re: reasons why management don't want linux
May I suggest babelfish? I had not tried for ages, and I am impressed. The bugs/KLOC ratio is close to what I can do in shell scripts ;-) Mag ich babelfish vorschlagen? Ich habe zu vielen deutschen ISPs geschrieben und die Bem|hung bilde, zum Deutschen zu |bersetzen, bevor ich sende. Ich bin sicher, da_ ich h|bsches inarticulate klingen mu_, aber meine Korrespondenten immer scheinen, die Bem|hung zu schdtzen.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Phil Payne wrote: SuSE monitor this list. If there have been any material errors, they can correct them by posting themselves or by asking anyone who posted anything incorrect for a retraction - which I for one would be Phil, SuSE does _not_ monitor this list, I and one or two collegues of mine have a look at it from time to time, as spare time allows us to do so - therefore we can't correct all misinformation on this list! As it was quoted here several times, you can contact us for information any time on [EMAIL PROTECTED] resp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want to make business out of SuSE Linux, you should consider this as the usual way to get answers, no company explains there market and pricing model via mailing lists... Esp. maintenance seems to be a term which is misunderstood by some people, so if you feel you have open questions on anything, please let us know. -- Kind regards, Joachim Schröder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) SuSE Support Services SuSE GmbH Tel +49-421-526-233-0 Schanzaeckerstr. 10Fax +49-911-74053-489 D-90443 Nuernberg Email[EMAIL PROTECTED] GermanyWWWhttp://www.suse.de === S/390 - IPL the GPL! visit http://s390.suse.de === More info at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Mark, Have a look at IBM's offering. They will provide an LPAR with a configured LINUX (SUSE is one of the options) for you to evaluate We have one and it is a good first step. Mick Megson -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Post, Mark K Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux Except the situation you're positing never existed. Support for SuSE (or Turbolinux or Red Hat) was _never_ free. People seem to keep confusing the cost of the distribution with the cost of the support, and they are very much separate items. The cost of support is actually less expensive now than it was before (if I remember my conversations with Jens correctly). The only _real_ difference between now and before is that you don't have a choice of support or not if you want to use SuSE's Linux/390, and there's no way to test drive the distribution before deciding to buy or not. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Phil Payne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 5:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux The distribution itself is not particularly expensive. The bundled support that SuSE requires to purchase the software is $11,000 (US) per engine for the 31-bit and $14,000 per engine for 64-bit systems. The problem is - for those making strategic decisions - is not the $11k today but the fact that what was effectively free yesterday and costs $11k today might well cost $22k tomorrow. A _LOT_ of people out there like IBM and its products but just want to get the Software Division monkey off their backs. Operating system migrations cost money - there has to be a reason for the investment. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, David Boyes wrote: SuSE still offers a $4.500 evaluation version, which comes with the full service of the full product. While that's nice, that's still a far cry from the $150 you charged for the previous release, and I'm quite capable of providing my own support. Wrt to the evaluation version, if it's not what the customers will get as the final production release, it isn't useful for me. If I do testing, it needs to be the full release, or it isn't tested. David, there is only a 30-day installation support included in the Suse Linux Enterprise Server's eval and full version. The main part of the product SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (in opposition to SuSE Linux Personal and Professional version) is _maintenance_ (so called defect support by IBM), and that is something you definitely need for a sophisticated evaluation, because only SuSE maintenance is the service that guarantees preservation of all interfaces (e.g. APIs) by backporting bug fixes and continuous validity of certificates (e.g. for SAP and other 3rd party software). This outstanding service can't be free of charge, of course. To promote a consultants' decision towards SuSE Linux there exists a model called 'SuSE Linux Enterprise Business Partner' that - amongst others - enables these partners to evaluate SuSE Linux products on an effordable basis. -- Kind regards, Joachim Schröder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) SuSE Support Services SuSE GmbH Tel +49-421-526-233-0 Schanzaeckerstr. 10Fax +49-911-74053-489 D-90443 Nuernberg Email[EMAIL PROTECTED] GermanyWWWhttp://www.suse.de === S/390 - IPL the GPL! visit http://s390.suse.de === More info at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
MS Office (and Lotus Smartsuite among others) proved him wrong. I should have added he had the OS/2 market almost to himself. The OS/2 version of SS had an appalling reputation, and Office? What Office? The principal choices were Windows versions of WP, Office and SS, or Describe. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, David Boyes wrote: Even further -- the $150 media kit for SuSE 7.0 was something that most places could buy without Acts of God or accountants -- even within the reac h of someone's private wallet if push came to shove. That got them a lot of visibility. $11K/engine is not something that you can do on a private budget, and certainly not for an evaluation project. SuSE still offers a $4.500 evaluation version, which comes with the full service of the full product. That's way beyond any budget I'm likely to manage. To be sure I'm not going to run it on a real mainframe, but running Linux under Hercules on my Athlon is certainly something I can do. I'd be a lot happier if SuSE reinstated the media kits w/o support -- I lik e their distribution, and I generally like their approach, but I don't see a good reason to pay for something I'm not going to use. I'm told that media ^^ If you are not going to use it anyway, why you _need_ Linux on a mainframe? I f you just want to play with Linux, there is just the same Linux on a much cheaper platform, e.g. ia32. If I were to write a paper proposing my management adopt Linux on S/390 or zSeries, it better address that. Not Linux on my PC, even under Hercules. Everybody who has a very good reason to run Linux on a mainframe can talk to SuSE. If SuSE wants to sell it, let them make it easy for people to consider. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Everyone, thanks a lot for your great response on this topic online and offline. This realy helps me to get prepared. Met vriendelijke groet, Marcel Foortjes Systeem beheerder / Afdeling Mainframe beheer De Amersfoortse. De Inkomensverzekeraar. Stadsring 15, 3811 HM Amersfoort Postbus 42, 3800 AA Amersfoort Telefoon: (033) 464 2859 Fax: (033) 464 2933 www.amersfoortse.nl ***DISCLAIMER*** Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. AMEV Stad Rotterdam Verzekeringsgroep (ASR) N.V. sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending. This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). AMEV Stad Rotterdam Verzekeringsgroep (ASR) N.V. rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
MS Office (and Lotus Smartsuite among others) proved him wrong. I should have added he had the OS/2 market almost to himself. The OS/2 version of SS had an appalling reputation, and Office? What Office? The principal choices were Windows versions of WP, Office and SS, or Describe. You could, at the time, run _most_ of the Windows stuff under the OS2 WIN32S add-in. One of IBM's greatest broken promises was a full-function version of that product. However - the common factor between Lennane and SuSE is a degree of hubris.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Mick, You are referring to the Linux Community Development System, and I do have an instance there. That environment is relatively restrictive, compared to what I can do at my own site, and is intended primarily for people who don't have access to their own S/390 or zSeries hardware. And guess what? My instance is running SuSE 7.0, not the latest and greatest. There's nothing quite like wringing out a distribution on the hardware you intend to put into production, and with the _exact_ software mix besides. I agree that the LCDS is a _great_ thing, and I applaud IBM for making it available. It's just not a replacement for the kind of evaluation Adam, David, I, and others are talking about. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Michael Megson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux Mark, Have a look at IBM's offering. They will provide an LPAR with a configured LINUX (SUSE is one of the options) for you to evaluate We have one and it is a good first step. Mick Megson
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
In a message dated 1/21/2002 10:26:52 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What you need to understand is that your success so far is based on widespread acceptance of your code and that your current market dominance is based on being the first mover in this space. Take that away by making your distribution difficult to obtain or integrate into custom solutions, or annoy enough of the consultants and system integrators by making it difficult for them to value-add onto your product, and you *will* lose that acceptance, and correspondingly, your market share. You're biting the hands that feed you. If that's your strategy, great, it's working. Your gun, your head, your thumb spinning the cylinder. The choice is yours. Out here, we, the folks that recommend purchases to customers don't think it's such a great idea and are trying to give you feedback on your choice before the marketplace does. Take that for what it's worth -- after all, look what you paid for it...8-) AMEN ...and let me add this point It is important for SuSE to understand that IF they open up the evaluation copy and get the latest release spinning on lots and lots of enterprise mainframes... they will eventually reap MANY support contracts from S390 sites. After all...how many companies are going to allow PRODUCTION use of Linux on the mainframe without support contracts ?? Dave
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Greetings; This whole discussion reminds me of an email I got a few days ago. This particular company is working on a new and very interesting product and wanted me to be a beta tester for them. So far so good. The really hilarious part was that they wanted me to *pay* $99 for the privilege! I have personally tested and evaluated a bit of software and hardware in the last few years and I haven't paid for any of it, not even shipping and handling. And I got a free production version of the product when the testing was over. I have also installed, tested and evaluated four different flavors of L/390 and I didn't pay anything for them either. And I doubt very much that we will pay to evaluate any software in the future unless there is a 100% refund agreement attached. After all, why should I pay for benefit I didn't receive? And please don't anyone say that knowing the product is not of use to me is a chargeable benefit. I already paid for that knowledge in time and resources. Regards, Dennis
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Coffin Michael C wrote: EXACTLY! Forcing service contracts down the throats of shops that are evaluating ... SuSE does not seem to get! What is interesting to note is that this S/390 strategy appears to be the opposite of SuSE's INTeL Linux strategy, where they (like RedHat) give away as many eval copies as they can. Has Linus Torvalds weighed in on this issue, ... I kind of hope he does not.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On the other hand, by the time you're at a thousand rackmount Intel boxes versus a zSeries capable of hosting 1000 Linux images comfortably (though certainly not with as much CPU per image as the Intel boxes--so obviously this is a solution you'd only want to evaluate for I/O, rather than CPU-bound loads), the hardware cost is more-or-less the same (within a factor of two, let's say--which sounds weaselly, except for the next sentence). At that scale, neither hardware nor software is the major cost of running such an operation: your facilities are. One zSeries box plus attached DASD takes up *much, much* less floor space, power, cooling, and required maintenance personnel than a thousand Intel boxes. Rich Fuchs (once of System/370 performance fame) did some work on server consolidation at IBM. He found major issues not just in the number of vendors involved in most organisations, but the number of different and often mutually incompatible levels of each vendor's operating systems. I remember discussing one shop where management though they had around seven different types of 'source' server as potential candidates for consolidation - by the time they'd finished (allowing for incompatibilities within product ranges) they had found over thirty. There are disadvantages in centralising (you have to meet the availability requirements of the most stringent application across most if not all of the configuration) but the control and discipline of a single software environment (IMO) easily compensates. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/20: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
The distribution itself is not particularly expensive. The bundled support that SuSE requires to purchase the software is $11,000 (US) per engine for the 31-bit and $14,000 per engine for 64-bit systems. The problem is - for those making strategic decisions - is not the $11k today but the fact that what was effectively free yesterday and costs $11k today might well cost $22k tomorrow. A _LOT_ of people out there like IBM and its products but just want to get the Software Division monkey off their backs. Operating system migrations cost money - there has to be a reason for the investment. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
The software division has nothing to do with this. They do not set pricing for Linux distributions, the Linux distributors do. The vast majority of the price is related to the service, a small part is the packaging. If you are migrating Linux to Linux/390, there is only a platform change cost, which is very small. If you are migrating another Unix to Linux/390, you may or may not incur additional charges depending upon what is being ported. The point being...the cost of Linux for S/390 is not going to be the factor that causes indecision. It's going to be vendor support and application availabliity. The first one is being covered by support contracts from the distributors, the second is an ongoing process that more and more vendors are latching onto. On Monday 21 January 2002 04:59 am, you wrote: The distribution itself is not particularly expensive. The bundled support that SuSE requires to purchase the software is $11,000 (US) per engine for the 31-bit and $14,000 per engine for 64-bit systems. The problem is - for those making strategic decisions - is not the $11k today but the fact that what was effectively free yesterday and costs $11k today might well cost $22k tomorrow. A _LOT_ of people out there like IBM and its products but just want to get the Software Division monkey off their backs. Operating system migrations cost money - there has to be a reason for the investment. -- Rich Smrcina Sytek Services, Inc. Milwaukee, WI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All! Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2002 in Cincinnati (Fort Mitchell, KY). April 12-16, 2002 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Marcel, One of the reasons might be that management sees a lack in supporting software for this platform. Normaly the OS/390 platform is know and used for it's robustness as a hardware platform aswell as the available software to maintain, secure, etc the system. One of the things you will need it systems management software, especialy in an environment where you will tend to run applications that will be available to the world outside the current realm of the company. High visability is nice for a company but not if things go wrong. Without letting this sound to much as a sales pitch I would advise you to take a look at our website at www.bmc.com/products or register as a user on www.bmc.com/support. On the latter site you can get more than just the commercial info in the form of newsletters and documentation on for instance our MAINVIEW for Linux Servers software. If you would like me to get in touch with you on this subject please contact me on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Ted Jans Software Consultant Commercial Technical Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] 030-608 5366 of 06-533 523 10 -Original Message- From: Marcel Foortjes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: reasons why management don't want linux Hello, I have been asked by management for a justification for linux and linux on S/390. I've read a lot of the presentations about the pro's on linux and linux on S/390 but still the acceptance of linux in a corporate environment is still low. Can you help me to make an inventory of the reasons why management still don't want to invest in linux. If I know them before I present my justification I can use them to take a way this misunderstandings. Thanks in advance for your help, Marcel Foortjes Systeem beheerder / Afdeling Mainframe beheer De Amersfoortse. De Inkomensverzekeraar. Stadsring 15, 3811 HM Amersfoort Postbus 42, 3800 AA Amersfoort Telefoon: (033) 464 2859 Fax: (033) 464 2933 www.amersfoortse.nl ***DISCLAIMER*** Deze e-mail is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde(n). Verstrekking aan en gebruik door anderen is niet toegestaan. AMEV Stad Rotterdam Verzekeringsgroep (ASR) N.V. sluit iedere aansprakelijkheid uit die voortvloeit uit elektronische verzending. This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s), and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s). AMEV Stad Rotterdam Verzekeringsgroep (ASR) N.V. rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
n Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:07:08AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: The only _real_ difference between now and before is that you don't have a choice of support or not if you want to use SuSE's Linux/390, and there's no way to test drive the distribution before deciding to buy or not. And both of these are potential deal-killers. Because you haven't bought *vendor* support doesn't mean you haven't bought support--Cygwin did well for years with *that* model. Further, in today's space, a lot of shops looking at Linux on the S/390 have enough depth of Linux experience that they're planning on being their own support. And not being able to test drive for something you're probably planning on using to replace a substantial chunk of your infrastructure is not pretty. Adam
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
We have started an project to evaluate using Linux here. Part of the mandate is to start as we mean to proceed. In other words, the distribution we choose now will be the one we go into production with (IF we go into production). When we go into production, the distribution vendor MUST be capable of giving us support (we will buy a support contract). But from a technical viewpoint, if I want to show off what Linux is capable of doing, I think I would be best using the most current kernel, 2.4. Since this project has a budget of $0.00, then one vendor is off the candidate list right away. Even further -- the $150 media kit for SuSE 7.0 was something that most places could buy without Acts of God or accountants -- even within the reach of someone's private wallet if push came to shove. That got them a lot of visibility. $11K/engine is not something that you can do on a private budget, and certainly not for an evaluation project. I'd be a lot happier if SuSE reinstated the media kits w/o support -- I like their distribution, and I generally like their approach, but I don't see a good reason to pay for something I'm not going to use. I'm told that media kits are still available in Germany for SLES 7, but not elsewhere. But, ultimately the market will decide... -- db
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Several comments: Linux on 390 Port [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/21/2002 09:02:36 AM: I think that you are correct about this. We have started an project to evaluate using Linux here. Part of the mandate is to start as we mean to proceed. In other words, the distribution we choose now will be the one we go into production with (IF we go into production). When we go into production, the distribution vendor MUST be capable of giving us support (we will buy a support contract). But from a technical viewpoint, if I want to show off what Linux is capable of doing, I think I would be best using the most current kernel, 2.4. Since this project has a budget of $0.00, then one vendor is off the candidate list right away. You have a good plan and you might want to talk to SuSE and 'encourage' them to get their evaluation license in place. -Original Message- From: Adam Thornton [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 11:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux n Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:07:08AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: The only _real_ difference between now and before is that you don't have a choice of support or not if you want to use SuSE's Linux/390, and there's no way to test drive the distribution before deciding to buy or not. And both of these are potential deal-killers. Because you haven't bought *vendor* support doesn't mean you haven't bought support--Cygwin did well for years with *that* model. Further, in today's space, a lot of shops looking at Linux on the S/390 have enough depth of Linux experience that they're planning on being their own support. Adam - I wouldn't say that a lot of shops have enough Linux depth to do it on their own, especially when you get into the issues of running under z/VM and 24x7x366 support. Just my $0.01 And not being able to test drive for something you're probably planning on using to replace a substantial chunk of your infrastructure is not pretty. Adam Lionel B. Dyck, Systems Software Lead Kaiser Permanente Information Technology 25 N. Via Monte Ave Walnut Creek, Ca 94598 Phone: (925) 926-5332 (tie line 8/473-5332) E-Mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sametime: (use Lotus Notes address) AIM:lbdyck
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
You have a good plan and you might want to talk to SuSE and 'encourage' them to get their evaluation license in place. I'd certainly add a voice to this. Adam - I wouldn't say that a lot of shops have enough Linux depth to do it on their own, especially when you get into the issues of running under z/VM and 24x7x366 support. I think it's more a cultural issue than a VM/390/Linux and 7x24 issue. It's also a net new customer vs traditional IBM customer issue, too. Most Unix or Linux-oriented shops approaching the problem tend to follow Adam's model; it's just another platform, you do your own Linux support and contract for the new 390 elements that they haven't encountered before. They have Linux skills; the 390 stuff is what's foreign to them, and they don't see the value of buying support for something they already know how to do, particularly if that support costs about 100 times the price of a media-only kit. The more traditional 390 customer would be more likely to buy support first and then approach the new Linux issues. I think the issues with supporting VM are well-understood. Buying a support contract from a Linux vendor doesn't address those issues in most cases -- after all, you're buying Linux support, not VM support from them, and most of the Linux vendors know less about VM than the people on this list, or they have contracted out for VM-specific expertise, in which case skipping the middleman is often more cost-effective. If the issue is 24x7 support, then IMHO, all bets are off. Most of the Linux vendors claim 24x7, but when push comes to shove, it's somewhat less than you would expect if you're accustomed to how IBM supports VM or OS/390. The infrastructure isn't there to do it, and it's going to take them a while to get there. IBM Global Services is partway there, but even with their infrastructure advantages, they just don't have the manpower yet to deliver VM-style support for Linux. That's one of the advantages of not having to buy your support from the vendor and using someone like Sytek or Sine Nomine -- you get the combination of the two systems at a competitive price, and you're not locked into the vendor's way of doing things. -- db -- db
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Maybe I'm just being grumpy today, but I'm inclined to say that SuSE have made their bed, now they can lie in it. -Original Message- From: David Boyes [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 1:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux You have a good plan and you might want to talk to SuSE and 'encourage' them to get their evaluation license in place. I'd certainly add a voice to this.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, David Boyes wrote: Even further -- the $150 media kit for SuSE 7.0 was something that most places could buy without Acts of God or accountants -- even within the reach of someone's private wallet if push came to shove. That got them a lot of visibility. $11K/engine is not something that you can do on a private budget, and certainly not for an evaluation project. SuSE still offers a $4.500 evaluation version, which comes with the full service of the full product. I'd be a lot happier if SuSE reinstated the media kits w/o support -- I like their distribution, and I generally like their approach, but I don't see a good reason to pay for something I'm not going to use. I'm told that media ^^ If you are not going to use it anyway, why you _need_ Linux on a mainframe? If you just want to play with Linux, there is just the same Linux on a much cheaper platform, e.g. ia32. Everybody who has a very good reason to run Linux on a mainframe can talk to SuSE. kits are still available in Germany for SLES 7, but not elsewhere. Media Kits are not available for SLES 7, not even in Germany. But, ultimately the market will decide... ...where the choice is only between the companies that will survive. -- Kind regards, Joachim Schröder More info at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
I'd be a lot happier if SuSE reinstated the media kits w/o support -- I like their distribution, and I generally like their approach, but I don't see a good reason to pay for something I'm not going to use. I'm told that media ^^ If you are not going to use it anyway, why you _need_ Linux on a mainframe? If you just want to play with Linux, there is just the same Linux on a much cheaper platform, e.g. ia32. Politics. It can be very hard to get permission to spend even $500 in a large organisation. No amount of trialing on a toy computer will tell you anything about the issues (such as operations automation, administration of thousands of users) that are current in large organisations. Everybody who has a very good reason to run Linux on a mainframe can talk to SuSE. Every ISV says the same. IT managers don't have the time to conduct protracted negotiations with software vendors - some organisations have as many as fifty and one visit a month from each would burn up one person's time completely. SuSE has, in my opinion, made what I refer to as the Jim Lennane mistake. There are, fortunately, other distributions. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/20: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
OK, I'll admit I am not completely informed about when it concerns IT history. What is the Jim Lennane mistake?? I assume he is referring to the Jim Lennane who ran DeScribe. A great word processor that was popular on OS/2 (when I was in OS/2 support). Jim believed that no one would want (need?) an integrated solution. MS Office (and Lotus Smartsuite among others) proved him wrong. Regards, Jim Elliott - Linux Advocate, IBM Canada Ltd.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
snip.. It may not be a question of SuSE-on-S/390 versus no Linux-on-S/390, you know. Further, it may well be going into a shop that wants to run Linux on Intel boxes as well. Those shops usually want to use a single vendor's Linux distributions across their platforms. There is at least one distributor that lets you do this for evaluation purposes free of charge. While Linux, pretty nearly, is Linux, it is quite useful to be able to actually run it on the candidate platform. Further, I think the idea of a $4500 evaluation license is simply silly, especially since you include support with it. If it's an *evaluation* license, what do I need the support for? A much cheaper, no-support license would be much more appropriate for evaluation purposes. Can't get it running without needing the support I haven't paid for, is certainly a viable evaluation result, and would tell the evaluator a lot about the ease of installation of the product. Adam Excuse me folks, I think there's something we've all forgotten here: this is a *Linux* distribution we're talking about here. You know, Linux, - that OS which is distributed under the GPL. Even if Suse won't sell media kits without support, refuse to make it available for free download etc, there's still nothing to prevent anyone who aquires a copy from making it available for free, 'as a service to the community'! The only questionmark is over YaST, which is under a Suse license, not GPL, but even that isn't a problem - my YaST license specifically states: 'All programmes derived from YaST, and all works derived thereof as a whole or parts thereof may only be disseminated with the amended sources and this licence in accordance with 2b). Making YaST or works derived thereof available free of charge together with SuSE Linux on FTP Servers and mailboxes is permitted if the licences on the software are observed.' It also states: 'It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE GmbH or SuSE Linux. ' Note the words 'for payment'. If a site has got a copy of the latest Suse S/390 GA, there is nothing I can see to prevent them from making it available to one and all via FTP, or indeed from copying and distributing the media so long as they don't charge. I submit that this is a storm in a teacup, and Suse have made an error of judgment in trying to restrict distribution of *Linux*! It ain't called the GPV for nothing :-) A $4,500 evaluation license for Linux Perish the thought! Mike http://www.corestore.org _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
His mistake was believing that his market position (the only full-function word processor available for OS2) would permit him to impose significantly different TsCs on his potential customers. Phil: I had forgot about that! Since I got my copy of DeScribe for free (I was doing OS/2 sales support in Canada at the time) I did not get hit by the TsCs. DeScribe was a great product, and I was sorry to see it fail. Regards, Jim Elliott
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Hello from Gregg C Levine normally with Jedi Knight Computers I agree with David Boyes, with Mike Ross, and with a few others, except Phil Payne. It happens that the methods Suse are taking are indeed peculiar. It also happens that Mike is right about this being Linux. My first areas of interest were freely available, in public libraries, and online. Definitely online. I only bought a few, when necessary. So, in a way this strangeness makes sense. What the outcome will be, no on really knows. So can we cancel further discussion on this issue? We have been beating it over the head, with gaffe sticks for a while now. --- Gregg C Levine [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Force will be with you...Always. Obi-Wan Kenobi Use the Force, Luke. Obi-Wan Kenobi (This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi ) (This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda ) -Original Message- From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Ross Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 11:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux snip.. It may not be a question of SuSE-on-S/390 versus no Linux-on-S/390, you know. Further, it may well be going into a shop that wants to run Linux on Intel boxes as well. Those shops usually want to use a single vendor's Linux distributions across their platforms. There is at least one distributor that lets you do this for evaluation purposes free of charge. While Linux, pretty nearly, is Linux, it is quite useful to be able to actually run it on the candidate platform. Further, I think the idea of a $4500 evaluation license is simply silly, especially since you include support with it. If it's an *evaluation* license, what do I need the support for? A much cheaper, no-support license would be much more appropriate for evaluation purposes. Can't get it running without needing the support I haven't paid for, is certainly a viable evaluation result, and would tell the evaluator a lot about the ease of installation of the product. Adam Excuse me folks, I think there's something we've all forgotten here: this is a *Linux* distribution we're talking about here. You know, Linux, - that OS which is distributed under the GPL. Even if Suse won't sell media kits without support, refuse to make it available for free download etc, there's still nothing to prevent anyone who aquires a copy from making it available for free, 'as a service to the community'! The only questionmark is over YaST, which is under a Suse license, not GPL, but even that isn't a problem - my YaST license specifically states: 'All programmes derived from YaST, and all works derived thereof as a whole or parts thereof may only be disseminated with the amended sources and this licence in accordance with 2b). Making YaST or works derived thereof available free of charge together with SuSE Linux on FTP Servers and mailboxes is permitted if the licences on the software are observed.' It also states: 'It is forbidden to reproduce or distribute data carriers which have been reproduced without authorisation for payment without the prior written consent of SuSE GmbH or SuSE Linux. ' Note the words 'for payment'. If a site has got a copy of the latest Suse S/390 GA, there is nothing I can see to prevent them from making it available to one and all via FTP, or indeed from copying and distributing the media so long as they don't charge. I submit that this is a storm in a teacup, and Suse have made an error of judgment in trying to restrict distribution of *Linux*! It ain't called the GPV for nothing :-) A $4,500 evaluation license for Linux Perish the thought! Mike http://www.corestore.org _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
The distribution itself is not particularly expensive. The bundled support that SuSE requires to purchase the software is $11,000 (US) per engine for the 31-bit and $14,000 per engine for 64-bit systems. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Phil Payne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 1:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux less software costs (one copy per engine vs one copy each for each boxes) then most other platforms. software costs lower. How many copies of Red Hat PC boxed set can you buy for a VM license ;) How much is a SuSe Linux/390 distribution these days? A German user told me yesterday that the cost is very far from insignificant. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/18: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
The latest SuSE GA distribution can _not_ be downloaded for free. To get it, you must either be a SuSE Business Partner, or buy it and a bundled support contract. Indeed. I was told that a price close to $10k per engine had been quoted to a German user, and the link to the free download blocked off. The latter may have been during the temporary hiatus caused by the Einstweilige Verf|gung, of course. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/15: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
The only major cost of Linux or Linux/390 I recall was around $70K. I wasn't that interested in Linux at that time, so I really didn't keep the flyer. But, my impression was that it was for a 3 year support contract. It brings me to another topic. What is in a support contract? For Linux/390, is it just a convient way of getting fixes, that anyone can get, if they can find them? Is it like a PUT tape, issued frequently, that we can, basically blindly apply? Does someone else apply the fixes for us? Does it include someone fixing any problems we come up with? Just trying to figure out the options... Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Phil Payne wrote: less software costs (one copy per engine vs one copy each for each boxes) then most other platforms. software costs lower. How many copies of Red Hat PC boxed set can you buy for a VM license ;) How much is a SuSe Linux/390 distribution these days? A German user told me yesterday that the cost is very far from insignificant. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/18: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Note that Alan originally asked for the number of Red Hat PC (!!) boxed sets that one could buy, and this was then magically turned into a discussion on the cost of buying a Suse Linux/390 combined software + support package, which is quite a different thing, and totally irrelevant for the comparison that Alan was making. PC linux boxed sets are available from Red Hat, Suse, and others at roughly $100. Fine, but this is a mailing list specifically intended to discuss Linux on S/390 and zSeries, not PCs. Alan's original question was off-charter for the group and I think the note about Suse's new attitude to what many considered a lowest-cost environment is highly relevant. As thread drift goes, it was pretty tame - it stayed with Linux and costs and even brought the discussion closer to the group's charter. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/03: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Interesting point. Even though licenses for some software costs the same between NT and Linux for S/390, that running on NT could cost more due to the number of physical machines needed to support a particular application. On Sunday 20 January 2002 05:38 pm, you wrote: Rich Smrcina wrote: The one weak point in several of the price comparisons that I have seen sofar is that they tend to compare NT on Intel versus Linux on S/390 which is not quite the same as Linux on Intel versus Linux on S/390 Note that NT on Intel quite possibly requires more boxes, and hence more software licenses and more personel than Linux on Intel. Thus, the more interesting comparison to me seems to be Linux on Intel vs Linux on S/390. Unless, of course, the aim is to sell Linux on S/390... -- Rich Smrcina Sytek Services, Inc. Milwaukee, WI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Catch the WAVV! Stay for Requirements and the Free for All! Update your S/390 skills in 4 days for a very reasonable price. WAVV 2002 in Cincinnati (Fort Mitchell, KY). April 12-16, 2002 For details see http://www.wavv.org
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
How much is a SuSe Linux/390 distribution these days? A German user told me yesterday that the cost is very far from insignificant. It can be downloaded at no charge. That's the old 7.0 GA, not the SLES 7 current release. You cannot download the current release. It is not available without a support contract -- ie, no media kits without support. You can patch it up to current code, but that's not for the faint of heart. For a proper boxed distribution with CDs, Suse guy at Linuxworld last year quoted me IIRC $100. It wasn't very far from that figure at any rate. No idea what official Suse support costs are. That was last year. Not any more.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:38:27AM +0100, Willem Konynenberg wrote: The one weak point in several of the price comparisons that I have seen sofar is that they tend to compare NT on Intel versus Linux on S/390 which is not quite the same as Linux on Intel versus Linux on S/390 Note that NT on Intel quite possibly requires more boxes, and hence more software licenses and more personel than Linux on Intel. Thus, the more interesting comparison to me seems to be Linux on Intel vs Linux on S/390. Unless, of course, the aim is to sell Linux on S/390... Well, for small numbers of Linux instances, it's a win, certainly, to do it on Intel hardware. On the other hand, by the time you're at a thousand rackmount Intel boxes versus a zSeries capable of hosting 1000 Linux images comfortably (though certainly not with as much CPU per image as the Intel boxes--so obviously this is a solution you'd only want to evaluate for I/O, rather than CPU-bound loads), the hardware cost is more-or-less the same (within a factor of two, let's say--which sounds weaselly, except for the next sentence). At that scale, neither hardware nor software is the major cost of running such an operation: your facilities are. One zSeries box plus attached DASD takes up *much, much* less floor space, power, cooling, and required maintenance personnel than a thousand Intel boxes. Adam
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
less software costs (one copy per engine vs one copy each for each boxes) then most other platforms. software costs lower. How many copies of Red Hat PC boxed set can you buy for a VM license ;) How much is a SuSe Linux/390 distribution these days? A German user told me yesterday that the cost is very far from insignificant. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/01/18: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
less software costs (one copy per engine vs one copy each for each boxes) then most other platforms. software costs lower. How many copies of Red Hat PC boxed set can you buy for a VM license ;) How much is a SuSe Linux/390 distribution these days? A German user told me yesterday that the cost is very far from insignificant. It can be downloaded at no charge. For a proper boxed distribution with CDs, Suse guy at Linuxworld last year quoted me IIRC $100. It wasn't very far from that figure at any rate. No idea what official Suse support costs are. Mike http://www.corestore.org _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
I can give you a real world example which is based around an HP OpenView implementation that I'm aware of. 1 Support by 3rd party vendors The people responsible for first line support have Linux workstations. Every so often, the HPOV backup hangs. As soon as HPOV support is phoned they say that Linux is not a supported platform and that only HP and SUN workstations are supported and that if the problem can be repro'd on that kit, they'll be only too happy to troubleshoot it. Until then, bye-bye. 2 Microsoft weenies Yes, I know that this is a derogatory term but believe me, the people involved deserve it. This particular HPOV implementation is based on a redundant SUN cluster with the monitoring defn's dragged out of a WinNT-based SQL server. The problem . . . one of the problems, for there are a few . . . one of the many problems, is that the SQL db is accessed through the main SUN box. If this SUN box goes down, the backup takes over. Theoretically. The problem is that the SQL db is accessed only through the main box (duh! lousy design!) The development people have redesigned things to use MySQL and dump the NT box completely. Unfortunately, the person in Ops who is in charge is a Microsoft weenie and doesn't like this. So, he promptly says that this is not acceptable. When prompted as for why, he says that MySQL is an Open Source product and therefore, by definition, has no support. Sigh. It was pointed out to him that it is possible to buy support from the MySQL people to which his reaction was akin to I didn't know that. He hadn't even checked on the web site to see if this was possible. Add to this the way that the project owners (not the development staff) were overheard to be trying to come up with ways to justify an MS machine for the SQL db and I can only conclude that these people just are not technically literate. Frankly, it's enough to make a grown man cry. Sigh... again... Anyone in The Netherlands looking for a VM sysprog with 18 years experience who was playing around with the Linux for S/390 port before he was downsized from a certain large computer firm in a cost savings exercise? Rod Furey
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Post, Mark K wrote: The distribution itself is not particularly expensive. The bundled support that SuSE requires to purchase the software is $11,000 (US) per engine for the 31-bit and $14,000 per engine for 64-bit systems. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Phil Payne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 1:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: reasons why management don't want linux less software costs (one copy per engine vs one copy each for each boxes) then most other platforms. software costs lower. How many copies of Red Hat PC boxed set can you buy for a VM license ;) How much is a SuSe Linux/390 distribution these days? A German user told me yesterday that the cost is very far from insignificant. Note that Alan originally asked for the number of Red Hat PC (!!) boxed sets that one could buy, and this was then magically turned into a discussion on the cost of buying a Suse Linux/390 combined software + support package, which is quite a different thing, and totally irrelevant for the comparison that Alan was making. PC linux boxed sets are available from Red Hat, Suse, and others at roughly $100. -- Willem Konynenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question -- Charles Babbage
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
I can give many reasons why someone wouldn't want Linux. Now don't shoot me, but you need to know the concerns when you are in meetings. 1. A new operating system, such as Linux, requires a new skill set. You either have to train people or you have to buy people to support it. Unless you bring in highly trained people, the Linux applications and availability are going to suffer during the learning curve. 2. Linux in production is relatively new. It is immature. Still better then Microsoft products, but not likely to be as solid as VM/VSE/MVS. 3. Mainframes are expensive. Ok not really anymore. I still have a gut feeling that a mainframe resource unit costs about twice as much as the same resource unit on another platform. However, we operate at higher utilization levels, lower support costs(one copy to support then a copy on each box) and less software costs (one copy per engine vs one copy each for each boxes) then most other platforms. 4. Linux isn't ready for prime time. Jury is still out on that. Jiffies patch is available to reduce overhead. We have a work around for the Linux memory management (we need a switch in Linux to turn off its caching) and we have some sections that can use VM's shared segments. Just look at this list for all the fixes and bypasses that seem to come out weekly. I'm not sure if the I/O performance problem still is around, or that it has been addressed. 5. They got burnt by going to client/server or Microsoft. 6. Support costs seem to be high. The way Linux is maintained might be ok for PC stuff, but I sure want a MSHP, VMSES/E or SMP to do this. I wonder what the Auditors think about this type of shoot from the hip maintenance? 7. Where there are many qualified people out there that know Linux, there are a lot more dam idiots that don't know a dam thing (I'm in this catagory, but I'm learning.) They may know how to put Linux on a PC and get an application running and talk about how this is the greatest thing and everything should be done this way, but the idiots fall apart when questioned about support, costs, performance, long term care and feeding, etc. and this makes Linux look bad to management. These are the things I'm trying to address plus to manage managements expectations. If they think everything is great with Linux and it doesn't pan out, you tarnished Linux in that shop. I would have much rather brought Linux/390 in more slowly on our new H30 then have our CIO start considering Websphere on the system (with the application licensed for 350 users...I.E. our GEAC accounting system). The first meeting on this was last Tuesday. I don't know much else about it. I'm trying to heavly suggest that I be invited to any meetings involving applications on Linux, and more so, Linux/390. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
Alan Cox wrote: less software costs (one copy per engine vs one copy each for each boxes) then most other platforms. software costs lower. How many copies of Red Hat PC boxed set can you buy for a VM license ;) I'm not talking about the operating system, but the middleware and applications. DB2 UDB for Linux is the same price based on the number of engines. I can support more users on a 390 engine then an Intel engine. Hence I need more copies under Intel. Same for Websphere and then we get down to the applications. Given the rule of thumb of 100 Intel servers can be consolidated to a single 390 server... 100 copies of DB2 costs a lot more than 1 copy 100 copies of Websphere costs a lot more than 1 copy 100 copies of NT costs more than 1 copy of VM I thought I saw that DB2 UDB was $20K per server/engine. So, just on a software side, DB2 under Linux/390 being able to replace 3 copies of DB2 UDB on Intel, would basically reach a break even point. z/VM 4.x$45,000 DB2 UDB for Linux $20,000 Total: $65,000 DB2 UDB for Intel: $20,000 per copy 3 copies: $60,000 Of course, if anyone has real numbers, I'm all ears... Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting
Re: reasons why management don't want linux
The numbers are real enough. Rockin good price comparison. On Friday 18 January 2002 08:38 pm, you wrote: I'm not talking about the operating system, but the middleware and applications. DB2 UDB for Linux is the same price based on the number of engines. I can support more users on a 390 engine then an Intel engine. Hence I need more copies under Intel. Same for Websphere and then we get down to the applications. Given the rule of thumb of 100 Intel servers can be consolidated to a single 390 server... 100 copies of DB2 costs a lot more than 1 copy 100 copies of Websphere costs a lot more than 1 copy 100 copies of NT costs more than 1 copy of VM I thought I saw that DB2 UDB was $20K per server/engine. So, just on a software side, DB2 under Linux/390 being able to replace 3 copies of DB2 UDB on Intel, would basically reach a break even point. z/VM 4.x$45,000 DB2 UDB for Linux $20,000 Total: $65,000 DB2 UDB for Intel: $20,000 per copy 3 copies: $60,000 Of course, if anyone has real numbers, I'm all ears... Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting -- Rich Smrcina Sytek Services, Inc. Milwaukee, WI [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
