Why are mainframe people so reluctant to change ? I know cases where mainframe people refused to implement new applications, so they were implemented on different platform, old applications were removed as well as mainframe. I witnessed this situation personaly at one customer before I joined IBM. Now when I work for IBM in mainframe market I know the fights we have to fight. Mainframe platform and people are perceived as least flexible. I repeat - we are perceived as least flexible.
If you come with an idea of new application or solution, people from other platform see no problem, mainframe people show what are pitfalls. I don't say it is bad, I know it is because of their responsibility and experience to see the problems way ahead, but unfortunately today's market doesn't work this way. Everybody wants everything as fast as possible, problems are solved later, during production. Yes, it is totaly wrong, but it is reality. Linux is growing, it is a fact. Mainframe won several awards for being the best hw platform for Linux. Why do we see so many posts about 'our mainframe will be removed' ? I don't say all, but part of them is just because new applications were developed elsewhere. Here we remove one small 'unimportant' application and give it to unix, after two years it is one of core applications, needing new machines etc. Why not to develop it under Linux on mainframe ? And of course well known problem - new managers are taught UNIX and Linux, not JCL. Yes, even z/VM has a learning curve. But here you pinpoint it as a hidden cost, on different platforms (mainly windows) they are not counted as costs ? Everybody knows other OS out of the box ? Yes, Timothy is right, installing z/VM *is* easy. Also basic config is easy. And yes, production config and maintenance needs more knowledge, as others mention. It is a difference to install something and to tune it. As everywhere. Unfortunately, people from other platforms don't care, defaults are too often 'good enough'. But refusing everything only because it is different, is wrong. Don't take Linux on mainframe as competition, it is not meant so. z/OS (z/VSE etc) is 'main' OS on mainframe, but if you can run application server on Linux on z or on unix, why not to choose Linux on z ? DB2 on z/OS, WAS on Linux on z is a great combination. Less footprint, less cables etc(insert all marketing stuff, but part of it is true, even more true if you grow images). z/VM is not needed for 1-2 LPARs, but it helps a lot with monitoring, managing, backup etc. You can look at IBM pages for references. Flame me, you have full right to do so, compared to most of you I am still freshmen in wonderful mainframe world. Marian Gasparovic IBM Slovakia (speaking for myself of course, disclaimers, legal notices etc are all applicable) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
