I'm with Larre. I myself have always worked under JES2. Closest I came to JES3 was when the old Bank of America (San Frisco) was swallowing up the late great Security Pacific Bank (LA). BofA was JES3. In a meeting about obstacles to merging, some exec asked "How about first converting SecPac to JES3, then merging?" Bless his heart, he had no idea the barrel of worms he was proposing.
I don't believe that either JES is inherently superior. They are two alternative churches sitting kitty-corner on a busy intersection. One proclaims "There Ain't No Hell", the other counters "The Hell There Ain't". They each have adherents who don't want to concede the struggle to the other. A third church that melds the best of both might be a promising compromise, but habits would have change. People love their habits. And what would it be called? JES5 (2+3) or JES6 (2*3)? I sympathize with JES3 sites that will get bitten. . . J.O.Skip Robinson Southern California Edison Company Electric Dragon Team Paddler SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager 323-715-0595 Mobile 626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Larre Shiller Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 3:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: (External):Re: z/OS V2R5 Will be the Last Release to Include JES3 > Do you the think the z/OS overall ecosystem and the platform is made stronger > or weaker by getting to one JES? Well... I guess there are a number of ways to look at that. But I think that IBM runs the risk of losing some number of z/OS customers as a result of this, which could in the long term affect the overall IBM revenue stream and the life expectancy of the z/OS platform. I have to assume that the number-crunchers at IBM have already factored this into their calculations and have come to the conclusion that the risk is worth the reward here. In the near term, some larger and more complex JES3 installations, and especially those in the public sector that have constant external pressure put on them to "modernize" their systems (whatever that means... typically meaning "move to Linux" or "the AWS cloud"), may simply take this opportunity to move to a completely different platform. Or simply speed up the already on-going effort to eliminate (what is perceived as) legacy software with a high "technical debt" cost by moving to a different/modern platform. This is indeed a very real risk... and IBM has put many of us in a box. For those JES2 shops out there... imagine how your shop has grown over the past 30 years and what products/services that you support that have an API or in some way interface with JES. Just imagine what would it take for you to be able to know for sure that this conversion will be 100% successful? IBM can add as much JES3 functionality into JES2 as it wants to, but at the end of the day, you still have to do the conversion and ensure that your environment is 100% functional the day after the conversion. And how much fun do you think it will be to convert 16 SYSPLEXes and 300K MIPS-worth of workload (OK, so 30% of it is in a single SYSPLEX)...? A JES3-to-JES2 conversion effort is a high risk change that requires essentially the same level of effort as a conversion from one platform to another--but it has the disadvantage of a 100% "must-go-right" overnight IPL switch. And in the end, there's nothing to show for it... other than a 2 instead of a 3 and a line item in the CxO's spreadsheet that shows the millions of dollars spent on R&D, additional products, test time, personnel costs and lost productivity. Also, I certainly would not want to be the public official testifying in front of a Congressional panel the week after seeing the "Critical System Failure Affects Millions of Seniors" headline in the local paper. Would you put your professional reputation on the line and tell your CxO that "everything is going to be all right" the day before a conversion like this? On the other hand, moving to a different platform allows a staged application migration and a completely modernized environment--rich with new functionality and without the "legacy" problems that persist on z/OS while at the same time minimizing and compartmentalizing the risk to critical production applications. So... why would a CxO choose to spend millions of dollars on a costly and risky conversion effort (even if it were logistically possible), instead of using those same funds to completely modernize that same environment...? Similarly, very small shops that do not have the personnel or resources to perform a conversion will probably wait this out for a while and then simply move off the platform. For medium-sized shops, it's probably a wash. Overall, the number of customers affected here is probably rather small, but given the size of some JES3 shops, if this chases away enough JES3 shops, it could seriously negatively affect the overall installed MIP count and thus the long term stability of the platform. So... perhaps the shops that remain on z/OS will be in a better position... at least for a while, until those remaining shops also start drifting away from the platform for one reason or another until eventually there's nobody left to turn out the lights. Larre Shiller US Social Security Administration Office: 410.965.2209 “The opinions expressed in this post are mine personally and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the US Social Security Administration and/or the US Government.” ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
