Personally, not speaking for Hewitt Associates... :Rant on
Years ago IBM senior management tried to kill off not only CMS development -- but all of VM. Actually, that's happened several times. Sometimes the bell tolled for source code (effectively preventing new features from being added by customers), sometime it tolled as "co-existence" (functional VM stabilization). Most often the bell tolled for marketing, of which effectively there was none for many years. No marketing = no sales. No sales = business case for IBM to say "no one cares: kill it." A self-fulfilling prophesy. Apparently VM customers did not sell enough Big Iron - after all VM and CMS apps are exceedingly "resource thrifty", needing far less resources to perform the same tasks as some "O"ther "S"ystems. At least twice customers rose up en mass, and in almost in arms, to fight back. (Think: SHARE's "Source Force" and VMSHARE's "MEMO NOTAGAIN".) The customer argument was that senior IBM management did not know what they would lose if VM was dropped. Basically, IBM senior management did not know for what VM customers used their systems, nor how critical VM was to their business. And the VM customers did not do a good job complaining to IBM when they wanted something new in VM. We just used the terrific VM capabilities to write our own. I'm still pretty sure that IBM doesn't have a good grasp of what their customers "do" with VM, nor how valuable it is. IMHO - the most important point is that VM did not sell enough Big Iron. But now (even after so many attempts to kill off VM), it *is* selling Big Iron -- a large percentage of all new Big Iron. For Linux. What would have happened to IBM had senior management been successful in killing off VM on the first try? (Think: OS/2 and the PC business.) Certainly, no IFLs. And the inability to convert legions of decentralized servers onto single System z platforms. One of the arguments often heard against *nix is it's level of immaturity. They are still trying to do things that CP and CMS have done for years, honed to a fine edge, and do with excellent (mature) reliability. But now CMS is only good as a maintenance tool? Again: The customer argument was is that senior IBM management did does not know what they would will lose if VM was CMS is dropped (to the level of hipervisor support). Ignorance breeds intolerance. There seems to be a lot of intolerance by senior IBM management for continued CMS enhancements. I really don't know how to educate senior IBM management. Maybe set up a series of "common application" development projects and try them in competing platforms to learn which is the first to reach production, runs the fastest, runs with the lowest TCO, runs the most reliably across a set of standard outages, and which recovers fully in the least time? But I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. CMS would probably score very well, not providing the desired results to match the stated direction. Another argument against CMS development: schools aren't teaching mainframe skills for newbies. Commendably, IBM is attacking that problem head on. For z/OS, Linux, and others - but I'd be willing to bet a nice steak dinner that CMS application development is not included in that educational attack. Chicken/egg. Good thing that my bet wasn't a southern fried chicken dinner - we'd be EATing CMS development! :-( :Rant off - I'm getting too old to keep tilting at the same old windmills, staffed by the next new senior managers with no CMS expertise or understanding, but with a pre-closed mind. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. "Craig Dudley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <[email protected]> 05/03/2007 01:26 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: z/VM usability Alan, How about comments on one of the basic premise of this thread - CMS is "functionally stabilized"? From an external POV, it does appear that CMS (and adjunct components like SFS) isn't (aren't) being enhanced for the continuing support role it has in maintaining a z/VM CP environment. -- Craig Dudley Manager, Mainframe Technical Support Group Office of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1506 Fax 603-271-1516 >On Thursday, 05/03/2007 at 11:35 AST, "Edward M. Martin" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." was caused by IBM not >> supporting a product that is supported by the other IBM Operating >> systems. >> >> IBM is basically breaking a working system. (IMHO) >> >> And I am working on away to get off the VM/VSAM part, and it looks like >> it will be a NON-IBM solution. But I am still looking. > >By "business as usual", I mean that IBM continually withdraws products >from the marketplace, even some that people are using. There are still >people using VM/ESA V2. > >It was nearly two years ago (June 2005) that we announced that you would >no longer be able to order VM/VSAM effective September 30, 2005. In >August of the same year we announced that VM/VSAM would end service >February 28, 2007. Standard meaning: "Don't deploy new applications that >depend on VM/VSAM and begin working on a migration or risk mitigation plan >for applications you already have." It's true that if there is no >replacement product from IBM, and no 3rd-party substitute, then, yes, the >application is eventually re-hosted or discontinued completely. And >sometimes on a non-IBM, non-Linux platform. IBM makes the decisions it >makes and has to live with the consequences. > >I'm also sensitive to the fact that those decisions can also affect >someone's livlihood (inside IBM and out). I don't blame anyone for being >upset, if that's the case. > >Don't get me wrong, I wish VM/VSAM was still around, but it isn't, so >you're doing the right thing, triggering an application review. If you >choose that the risk of being unsupported is greater than the benefit your >company derives from the application, then it is time for a change. > >Finally, to the best of my knowledge, we have done nothing to "break" a >working system. If you find a defect in CMS that causes VSAM to break, >and you have a VM support contract, we will fix it. If you find a defect >in VSAM itself, no such luck unless you have an extended VSAM support >contract. > >Alan Altmark >z/VM Development >IBM Endicott ----------------- End Forwarded Message ----------------- -- Craig Dudley Manager, Mainframe Technical Support Group Office of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1506 Fax 603-271-1516 The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
