Data point: ISTR that one of the changes in 2000 with the eServer thing (and the name change to iSeries, pSeries, xSeries, zSeries) was to consolidate sales, because prior to that, a big shop would get four sets of IBM sales reps, each saying "Don't buy that other crap, buy my crap!" This was supposed to solve that problem.
Whether this worked is an exercise for the reader/historian. -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Steve Thompson Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 3:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Is z/OS finally doomed? WAS: How to collect multiple datasets attributes My 2 cents: There is a cloud purveyor that used (and may still be using) z/VM to spin up systems (Linux). As I recall, from the time you ordered a system, to the time it was up and running, was less than 15 minutes (had REXX code to issue all the commands to get the VM guest live). I don't recall if they offered different distros or just one (Redhat | Suse | Debian(?)) Speaking of sabotaging -- from my personal experience, it was IBM marketing that was cannibalizing the MVS|z/OS accounts to sell AS/400s and AIX boxes pushing Sieble and such migrations. I still say, when Amdahl was around, IBM was healthy. Per Bob Rogers, he killed off Amdahl by getting IBM to not renew TIDA (the Tech Disclosure Agreement). This happened right at the time the change from TTL/ECL to CMOS was in progress as I recall. We (at Amdahl) knew the CF was coming, but we didn't know how IBM was going to implement it and so my understanding was, we decided to wait and see, so we would not have to support two different implementations. Steve Thompson On 10/23/2025 3:21 PM, Jon Perryman wrote: >> exactly what the mainframe marketing people are trying to fight? > It's time to be brutally honest. z/OS marketing could not sell water to a > thirsty man. IBM has not sold 1 z/OS to Google. > > Why has z/OS marketing sabotaged z/OS for decades? z/OS is decades ahead of > Linux but the computing experts are clueless. If z/OS is to survive, it will > require the z/OS community to educate the world but first, the z/OS community > needs to understand what Linux is NOT. > >> Isn't "Linux in the cloud is cheaper and easier than Z in the cloud"? > ROTFLOL, "easier", absolutely not. 25 years of cloud and the computer > industry is still clueless about the cloud. > > There's a reason public clouds (e.g. Google cloud, Amazon AWS and Microsoft > Azure) thrive. Setting up and maintaining robust Linux private cloud can be > tricky. > > Setting up z/OS private cloud services is absurdly simple. The only required > change is "VIPA load balancing". In less 5 minutes, you configure an IP > address that is distributed among the systems in a SYSPLEX. For instance, > consider DB2 for z/OS running on 3 LPARS in a sysplex. Nothing complicated > because database requests to LPARs where DB2 is active. You easily add more > disk, CPU, network or other resources. They are automatically added to the z > Cloud without thinking nor must you learn something new. z/OS is a cloud > before the cloud became an idea. > > On the other hand, try setting up a private cloud database on 3 Linux > computers. Disks are not shared so you must implement NAS. By default, > databases are unique to each Linux and you must configure them to run from > NAS and locking. Networking becomes a challenge. Ask yourself why public > clouds are so popular. > > Don't forget that public clouds are not compatible. Switching to Google > cloud, Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure or ... requires conversion. It's not as > simple as moving the data. > >> why is mainframe hybrid cloud a great solution for IBM's customers but not >> for IBM? > This statement is wrong in so many ways. I'm surprised that no one has > brought this up. > > 1. Hybrid clouds combine public clouds with private clouds. Public cloud > providers such as Google cloud, Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure used along > with a customer's private cloud. > > For instance, I worked on the implementation of SAP High Availability (which > required database service, SAP Application services and SAP enque services). > SAPAS and SAPES easily use the customer's private cloud. For those customers > without z/OS, using a public cloud greatly reduces the cloud database > headaches. > > For z/OS customers, DB2 for z/OS eliminated the need for a public cloud > database. > > 2. Public, private or hybrid clouds have nothing to do with hardware nor > vendor. Services are provided by a cloud and those services are defined by > that cloud. > > 3. As for customers and IBM use of private, public or hybrid, this depends on > needs. > >>> instead. Seems nothing new, but... the cloud *won't be based on >>> System Z hardware*. It will be emulation under Linux. > The idea behind the cloud is that you don't know about the hardware and > software. Is it z? You don't know and you don't care. > >> That "it's not a real mainframe" thing put me off at first but then I >> realized that a zPDT is not a real mainframe either, right? It too is Z >> emulation under Linux. > Maybe some are real and some emulated. Externally it will be difficult to > determine. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Regards, Steve Thompson Make Mainframes Great Again They use far less Electricity than Clouds and can do more work ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
