Gabe, you know how much I hate getting pulled into these discussions. :-) First, I totally agree that both the zJournal and IBM's S.M. provide a lot of information and support for the mainframe. I also appreciate how difficult it is to get customers to discuss their efforts due to their own internal restrictions, which is one of the reasons that I have a lot of respect for the staff at both publications. They do a lot of good for this business (customers and vendors). However, I feel we (IBM included) could be doing some things a little better. I see very little IBM involvement or investment in "selling" the mainframe - z/VM story. The publications are completely separate operations non-IBM entities. Outside of conferences and other user meetings/councils, you seldom hear anything about the z/VM - Linux "message". When you do see an article about Linux on System z (IBM's mainframe strategy), you must search for the line that mentions z/VM as the platform supporting Linux. For example, check the latest edition of IBM System Magazine (March/April). One article is titled "zOS Storage the Omegamon Way". Conversely, in the Linux on z story, z/VM is mentioned on the bottom of the last page as almost an "oh by the way". What I find unfortunate, yet consistent, is IBM's business-as-usual approach when it comes to z/VM and the often feeble (if any) attempt of connecting it with whatever is being sold as today's "mainframe message". Involvement is another issue. Very few VM types are permited to attend conferences. Like Barton mentioned, I find it more than a little odd when you show up at predominantly mainframe events and find several sessions for VMWare and none for z/VM or even System z. You gotta wonder what's going on when that happens. We hear a lot these days about "virtualization", "dynamic infrastructure", cloud, and whatever else is being touted as this weeks razzle dazzle phrase. All too often it's from "chart pushers" that learned a week ago what it was and how to spell it. Outside of some very knowledgeable customers, there were fewer than 6 IBMers at the Seattle SHARE that could present virtualization-cloud-mainframe and how they all fit into IBM's "strategy". Very few people have that unique understanding, history, and passion for the platform. We need more of them present at conferences like CMG. Frankly, we need more of them... period. Maybe I missed it some place, but I'd like to see more substance and less razzle dazzle. (Speaking of razzle dazzle, I'd appreciate it if you guys didn't mention any of my presentations..) Anyway, I haven't seen that direction/substance/whatever in any recent key notes or journal articles. But, it could be I need to dig further than the last paragraph of the last page. Regards, Len Diegel In a message dated 4/4/2010 1:07:11 P.M. Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
Right. Mainframe stories (profiles, business cases, success stories, white papers, they have many names) appear in such places as z/Journal (with a technical slant), Mainframe Executive (aimed at management), IBM's Web site, IBM's Systems Magazine (Mainframe Edition), and other industry publications. For a while, I edited and wrote IBM's magazine S/390 VM and VSE Solutions Journal (subtitled "Success stories for today's business"). And of course, hardware/software vendors sometimes commission customer writeups highlighting their products' contributions to the (successful, long-lived, cost-effective, blah, blah, but still valid) mainframe ecosystem. But it's generally tough recruiting profile subjects, even though the process isn't burdensome or threatening. Sites can give enough detail to convincingly demonstrate (not describe or explain, there's a difference) why mainframes have been valuable to them. But proprietary/competitive/sensitive information need not be included. It's not investigative journalism and profile authors aren't 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace. The key to a good profile is simply a good story -- describing a problem solved, economies achieved, growth sustained, reliability maintained, industry leadership developed, etc. Or, simply nuts-and-bolts, bread-and-butter (insert your own cliche here...) company operation supported by mainframes. Profiles work for small/medium/large companies; they need diversity (geographic, industry, products/services, customers, etc.). There's usually an angle that works for story hooks; what matters is being willing to step up and be visible as a success story. So the next time an industry journalist calls for volunteers, step forward. So, Barton -- which of YOUR customers need profiling today? ;-) Barton opined, wisely: It doesn't matter if our mousetrap is better if nobody is out there trying to get mindshare (marketing). Preaching/grumbling to the choir doesn't change anything. So when was the last time that any of you tried to get a case study published showing how great your accomplishments are using z/VM? There are very few published stories (sorry games on "z" don't impress bean counters or executives, it's rather demeaning), we need REAL business case studies showing the value of "z/VM" to real companies. If we get enough and executives do a google search on VM, maybe they will find something useful? There are many places to post and publish. Even twitter or blogs would be helpful in getting mindshare. -- Gabriel Goldberg, Computers and Publishing, Inc. (703) 204-0433 3401 Silver Maple Place, Falls Church, VA 22042 [email protected] LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/gabegold
