On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 07:35:52 -0400, John Eells <[email protected]> wrote:
>Everyone: IBM is headed toward using z/OSMF Software Management as the >installer. Please go back to near the beginning of this thread with the >old topic name to catch up on the discussion thus far. > >More on the SHARE website, here: > >https://share.confex.com/data/handout/share/128/Session_20728_handout_10028_0.pdf From the previously titled thread: >At the last SHARE, the question was asked at the multivendor >installation-related >session about how many in the room were z/OSMF users. In the past, I've seen >those raising a hand to be perhaps 25% of a similarly-sized crowd, but in >March >about 2/3 of those present raised a hand (a pleasant surprise). Of course, >one >room at SHARE does not a valid statistical sample make, but it's one data >point. But is it a valid data point? We use z/OSMF only insofar as we are forced to for IP configuration and upkeep. We did not use z/OSMF to install v2.2, and I don't know whether we'll use it to install v2.3. There is talk of it, but it seems to be largely motivated by the thought that we will be forced into it (kind of like zFS). Don't get me wrong, we've had talks... I'm with simple and common software management processes, and I'm glad to see ISVs on board, but I'm not convinced that z/OSMF in and of itself is either necessary or sufficient to achieve the goal. If you have good SMP/E packaging, z/OSMF is unnecessary as an installer. If you have crappy SMP/E packaging, front-ending it with z/OSMF will not be sufficient to address the shortfall. I don't see the need for z/OSMF for software deployment. We have plenty of experience here, and are easily passing that along to our newer sysprogs. I recoil at the thought of using it for configuration. ISPF is sufficient to edit PARMLIB, et al, and it runs in a WS client, if you so choose. Seems to me, any of the substantive improvements offered by z/OSMF ought to be UI-agnostic. It doesn't take a "sticky" UI and and the overhead (FSVO minimal) of a server address space to improve product installation. These might have been made accessible ServerPac, or even the SMP/E dialogs, but they weren't. It's a fine thing for someone who wants the trouble of installing and configuring Liberty et al (and I've heard the cursing all the way from Austin and Phoenix), but ISPF apps ought to continue as supported options for those who prefer them. That's my buck-two-eight-five, after adjusting for inflation. :) Art Gutowski General Motors, LLC PS - While some of the observations herein are the result of my place of employ, the opinions expressed are my own. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
