The "gift" is not containers but container tech... layering. Just lifting and shifting distributed tech onto mainframe, with no consideration of the extreme complexities is very wasteful. Container orchestration exists because some of those containers (or the hosts they may run on) may have a problem. How likely is that to happen on Z? I know there's also the thing about service boundary, isolation etc. but do we really need all of that, totally ignoring equivalent patterns that already exist in zOS?
Yes, zCX lets you treat a container as just another address space. But at the added complexity of container-related setup itself that needs to happen within/across zCX. With native containers being controlled with systemd (which will be possible if LSS exists), we needn't touch kubernetes with a 100 foot poll. Just because everyone is jumping about K doesn't mean it makes sense as a universal solution. Anyway, there's already a lot of work from IBM indicating that zOS will become just another dumb box that's controllable by the kuberlords (not using this term in a derogatory manner, just referring to container people, usually distributed folks). - KB ------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, July 19th, 2023 at 9:39 AM, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19 Jul 2023, at 9:52 am, kekronbekron > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > Here's a dumb and bold prediction - the guts of RHEL (CoreOS) will be laid > > bare within zOS. > > > Nice idea, but I doubt it. > > > USS becomes LSS. zOS native containers are actually normal containers that > > you see in the linux world. > > DSFS and zCX end up helping to blur the boundaries between zOS and LSS. > > > Containers on their own are of limited use. You really need clusters and > orchestration for it to be useful. We have z/CX Foundation for Red Hat > OpenShift which requires 6 zIIPs just to idle. I’m sure it will get there in > the end but it’s a dog at the moment. > > > zOS is not going away. But we could all use a total re-think of zOSMF. > > > > - KB > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Wednesday, July 19th, 2023 at 6:17 AM, Jon Perryman [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > IBM RHEL announced it's move to closed source (IBM RedHat Enterprise > > > Linux). With some changes, DB2, RACF and other z/OS products could run in > > > Linux on z16 in one sysplexed Linux image. We know it's possible because > > > IBM moved Unix and TCP into z/OS. IBM RHEL said closed source would force > > > non-paying customers to buy RHEL licenses but this makes no sense. > > > Something else must be in play. > > > I created a survey at https://forms.gle/ZTPXsDJo8Z4H93sv7 to gain > > > insights into IBM's decision to close source RHEL. You can skip the > > > survey if you don't want to take it and view the survey results through > > > this website. Feel free to pass this along. > > > I think IBM wants to integrate z/OS products to retain their investments > > > and expand their customer base.. > > > Why is the z/OS community ignoring IBM RHEL closed source? Are software > > > vendors preparing their products for Linux? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
