On Tuesday, 08/29/2006 at 09:51 GMT, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Defining an operating system according to its usefulness is a waste of time. > > That I disagree with! > Usefulness is the only indicator. > > If it's not useful, why would I purchase it?
LOL, Ted! :-) You would only purchase something if you find it useful, of course. In the words of Lewis Carroll: `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Since we cannot agree on what an "operating system" is, we cannot hope to agree on it's shape, size, weight, speed (laden or unladen), or, in this discourse, usefulness. I find operating systems immensely *valuable* since they enable all kinds of *useful* applications. But by my definition of "operating system", it is not useful by itself. It just sits there and contemplates its cybernetic navel. I contend that when you bought "z/OS" you did not buy an operating system. Rather, you bought a data warehouse, a transaction processor, security, scalability, reliability, world-class support, expandability (hey, the h/w is there, too!), and all the other "inherent mainframe coolness" (TM) from which you derive business value. The operating system itself was not the driving force. All the stuff around it (e.g. CICS) is where the action is. Likewise, when someone sees the business value of large-scale, flexible, server consolidation or test environments, they turn to z/VM because it is the world's most scalable and flexible provider of virtualization services. They didn't say "Ooooh! Aaaaah! CMS! Way cool!". :-) Ruh roh! The cooler is empty again!!! Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
