Bob (and Shimon),
I could debate this with you until my fingers were raw. However, I don't
speak for IBM. I'm just repeating what I've been told by people from the VM
Development lab (including the VM Platform owner, George Madl). If you want
to try to make the case to them yet again, I suggest you use a forum like
SHARE's Requirements process. If you can't get to the next conference
(Orlando, 24-29 Feb 2008), I suggest you use the online Requirements system
(http://www.share.org/Reqs4Logon.cfm).
Marty
_______________________________________________
Marty Zimelis (putting on one of my other hats)
Deputy Director, Operations
SHARE, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RPN01
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:50 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Source
>
> I can't really buy that, because effort has to be expended
> now to support
> and maintain the currently distributed Pipes. I'm not asking
> for additional
> support and effort; I'm asking for a forward motion into the
> newer code that
> already exists.
>
> And, supporting Pipes DOES support virtualization. I just got
> done writing a
> Linux image cloning system which uses Rexx and Pipes
> extensively. A newer,
> better (supported) version of Pipes might have made that
> effort easier,
> faster, or more maintainable in the future.
>
> Rexx and Pipes aren't dead languages just because the
> emphasis of z/VM has
> switched from timesharing to Linux virtualization; their
> roles have just
> changed a bit.
>
>
> On 1/21/08 10:22 AM, "Marty Zimelis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bob,
> > This topic has been discussed repeatedly over the years.
> IBM -- and
> > rightly, IMHO -- insists that you/we (the VM community)
> make a business case
> > for the time and effort it would take to integrate and then
> support the
> > "download distribution" version of Pipelines in CMS.
> >
> > Given the severely limited resources of the VM
> Development lab and the
> > directives from further up the IBM food chain to spend
> those resources on
> > virtualization (i.e., Linux) and new device support, I
> suspect you'll be
> > hard-pressed to make a case that is sufficiently compelling
> to make this
> > happen during our (professional) lifetimes.
> >
> > Marty
> > ____________________
> > Martin Zimelis
> > Principal
> > maz/Consultancy
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CMSTSO Pipelines Discussion List
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RPN01
> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:12 AM
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [CMS-PIPELINES] Source
> >>
> >> This begs the question: Why has the Pipes shipped with z/VM
> >> now never been
> >> updated over the past ten years, when there is obviously a
> >> newer version
> >> readily available?
> >>
> >> I don't really care for running rogue versions of of tools
> >> supplied with the
> >> system, be it z/VM or Linux. But it would seem to me that it
> >> is high time
> >> for IBM to pick up a more current version of Pipes and
> include it with
> >> (possibly the next) a new release of z/VM.
> >>
> >> If this is not possible, then what is the logic behind it not being
> >> possible? Why can't we have a newer Pipes with our newer z/VM?
> >>
> >> --
> >> .~. Robert P. Nix Mayo Foundation
> >> /V\ RO-OE-5-55 200 First Street SW
> >> /( )\ 507-284-0844 Rochester, MN 55905
> >> ^^-^^ -----
> >> "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but
> >> in practice, theory and practice are different."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/21/08 1:31 AM, "John P. Hartmann"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> RE: Source
> >>>
> >>> The source code shipped with CMS is about ten years old
> (as is the
> >>> executable).
> >>>
> >>> The source for the runtime library that can be downloaded
> >> from Marist
> >>> is not distribued.
> >>>
> >>> j.
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
>
