Shai Hess writes: >MF must be open to take some good idea from PC to become >a better platform.
I agree, and the mainframe is open. For example, is a System z mainframe running Novell or Red Hat Linux more or less "open" than a PC server running Microsoft Windows 2008? I think the answer to that question is quite obvious. But you must surely recognize the supreme irony in what you're asking for: that in order to be "open" you want the mainframe (or at least your software) to prevent customers from all possibility of inspecting running code in any fashion, to be just like a PC. Every customer I've ever met would consider such an approach 110% closed and stifling. On both PCs and mainframes. I think that "PC versus mainframe" is a dodge, to be blunt. This is entirely a "vendor versus customer" argument. It concerns how you view your customers and their requirements in relation to yours, and whether you can reach mutually beneficial business agreements. In my experience, on both PCs and mainframes, customers must be able to manage what you sell them effectively, whether it's for reasons of performance analysis, troubleshooting and problem determination, security, backup/recovery, or whatever. Those management requirements are effectively non-negotiable, and customers have many alternatives in this competitive marketplace. As mentioned, let's take a few steps back here. What business goal(s) are you trying to accomplish? - - - - - Timothy Sipples Consulting Enterprise Software Architect IBM Japan, Ltd. [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
