Jay, I thought IBM was now pushing Ansible as the "future" of z/OS management, not necessarily z/OSMF.
I would want a reasoned proof to back up that assertion related to z/OSMF. Mike Shaw MVS/QuickRef Support Group Chicago-Soft, Ltd. On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 9:50 AM Jay Maynard < [email protected]> wrote: > We have had a philosophical question about z/OSMF come up at our shop. We > have Sirius contracted to do our system maintenance. Our approach to z/OSMF > has been to enable and give access to modules as need arises, making sure > to limit access to functions people need to do their jobs. This has always > been considered good security practice. > > We're now getting told that "z/OSMF should not be done piecemeal", and that > IBM and vendors are counting on it all to be there and enabled and keep > processes supported for years to come, and that this should be done for all > systems in our configuration. > > Who's right? What's the z/OSMF philosophy? Should we just turn on the world > and give access to all of it or none, no in between? > -- > Jay Maynard > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
