On Thursday, May 22, 2008 at 11:38 AM Wayne Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The requirement that a version upgrade requires a full re-install and then > copying of the data is one of the big issues I see with bringing Linux into > a System z shop and having experienced z folks work on it. For z/OS or > z/VM, you rarely (closer to never but...) have to move application data over > in order to build a new OS. There are systems that have been migrated from > MVS/SP on 24 bit hardware that are today running z/OS on 64 bit hardware, > and the data hasn't needed to be moved.
The comparison is not, I believe, between traditional mainframe operating systems and Linux, it's between Linux on the mainframe and Linux on distributed systems. I mean, on distributed Linux systems you will use the same criteria to decide to upgrade or re-install as you do on zLinux. Treat them the same in that respect and all will be well. The machines do not have any magic zDust (tm) to enhance Linux just because it's on the mainframe. But that in no way devalues the economics of server consolidation. Sure, it raises the obvious comparisons, but that's a Good Thing, providing impetus for improvement. If zPeople (tm) are complaining about the upgrade paths in Linux, then it seems they should use that when figuring out what levels of staffing they need, not as a reason to avoid Linux altogether. They are cutting off their noses just to spite their faces, as it were. And, finally, I would suggest that if Linux were developed in 1965, it would have evolved to the point where z/OS and z/VM are with respect to compatibility and upgrades. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
