Long before the CBT tape. Proprietary software was the innovation. In the 1950s through the 1970s shops routinely exchanged software, although the shift away from, e.g., cards, tape, has certainly made things easier. Also, these days there are formal mechanisms instead of the informal and ad hoc methods of an earlier era.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of kekronbekron [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 4:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Strange results for the PS1 prompt with z/OS Unix Ah ok, I misunderstood then. When you said it'll spare you the effort of continuous maintenance, I thought you meant further work/whatever will be based off of zopen stuff. Of course, RS can't offer support for zopen content directly. Well... giving back as in more than star-ing a repo. Keeping the supply chain sustainable. I'm seeing quite a bit of zopen patches being accepted upstream. But I do know what you mean... there are some projects/orgs that don't want to accept patches without having access to h/w where they can test/run those patches on. >> Comfort? That's hardly the case. > no responsible IT manager would be at ease without... In other words... comfort, albeit for a professional setting. I didn't use that word in a derogatory manner. It is what it is. Supported open source is certainly not a "must". It's just far more common/expected in the mainframe world. ... which is hilarious; it was the mainframe ecosystem that was originally open (I'm assuming)... with CBT etc. - KB ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, August 21st, 2023 at 13:57, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21 Aug 2023, at 1:35 pm, kekronbekron > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > I intend to leverage the z/OS Open Tools ports as they spare me the > > > effort of continuous maintenance. > > > > That sounds like it's going to lead to RS offering supported option of > > stuff, relying on other people's open sourced work... with what amount of > > giving back involved? > > > There is zero chance of RS offering commercial support for code ported by the > z/OS Open Tools community. They don’t need to. If they thought there was a > market for a tool that they would just provide their own port. > > I’m not quite sure what you mean by “giving back”? If you’re talking about > upstreaming changes then we’ve had this conversation before many times. The > maintainers of open source projects, such as Python, want nothing to do with > z/OS patches in their mainline code. That’s why IBM and Rocket keep their own > patch files. > > > In other words, what's the value add apart from the comfort of support, and > > the SMP/E install option? > > > Comfort? That's hardly the case. Deploying anything into production without > proper support is unheard of. If you're just a casual enthusiast downloading > development tools for personal use, that's one thing. However, when an > organization aims to adopt Git for managing critical source code, no > responsible IT manager would be at ease without round-the-clock support. This > principle applies universally, encompassing mainframes and all systems alike. > Support is a must, either directly from the product vendor or through > services provided by specialized organizations. As an example, consider > enterprise Linux distributions like RHEL, which are predominantly constructed > from open source software. RedHat (now IBM) or SUSE stands behind them, > delivering essential support. Same for cloud operators. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
