On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Ted MacNEIL <[email protected]> wrote: >>I've heard (anecdotally) that Oracle is > abandoning z/OS because the z/OS customers have abandoned Oracle. > > That statement is both true and false. > 1. ORACLE is abandoning z/OS. 9 was the last (and 32-bit) release. If you > want 64-bit & on z, you have to go to z/LINUX. > 2. ORACLE announced, over two years ago, that the were leaving z/OS. It had > nothing to do with the 'abandonment' by customers (although the z/OS market > is small compared to ORACLE's other platforms). It was profitability and > skill sets (theirs and their customers). > 3. Also, they didn't want to maintain multiple code streams. And, there's a > big difference between ORACLE on z/OS and any other platform. z/LINUX not so > much.
OK, that's interesting. Though two years ago, Linux on z was well-established, so it doesn't necessarily mean that they couldn't have been saying "We're going to lose on z/OS but we need a presence on z, and this is a cheap way to get there". I've confirmed that you can usually move an Oracle license from a distributed box to a z. Don't know that that was true for DGTIC or not. Anyway, back to your original question: why would SAS lose money offering SAS on Linux for z? They wouldn't necessarily, of course; if that were axiomatic, there would be no commercial software available for Linux on z. But I believe that the discussion has shown a number of reasons why they might, or at least might believe that they would, including potential loss of maintenance revenue and cannibalization of other platforms. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
