I had said, "Once it's up, Linux is Linux".
Robert noted:
>> Right up until you want to install some piece of software.
>> Unless you have the source, then linux is x86, or linux is arm,
>> or linux is z.
>>
>> This is the main issue we ran into in getting acceptance of
>> Linux on z here, and which ultimately led to its death.
>> Far too many of the things that people wanted to install were from
>> vendors who supplied the binary packages, not the source.
>
Then Willem said:
> Yes, this is generally a problem with most proprietary software vendors
> out there. You will find that open source solutions mosty just work.
Indeed! Source is undervalued. (Great to hear from you, Willem.)
But ISVs don't want to give away their secret sauce, of course.
So we're stuck in this muddy middle that Robert articulated.
My attempted point in saying "one-off isn't evil" (or something like that)
was/is that anyone with some HW other than AMD/INTeL must do
due diligence in getting their HW accepted. When a 3rd party SW vendor
comes into the picture, someone will have to step-up to make things happen.
(But a lot of people expect things to happen automagically ... like
their entitled
to not have to work to make things work.)
IT'S NOT DIFFICULT for some 3rd party to get their wares built for z,
or any one-off HW. Just a matter of doing it. For business apps,
the various HW platforms make little or no difference. The op sys
can then make use of the differing HW for a broad range of reasons.
(ARM is low power, X86 is commodity, Z is high reliability)
Or maybe the HW *does* matter to the biz app,
in which case HW matters all over again!
The value of Linux on z is that you can leverage the HW features
and capabilities which are simply not present on other platforms.
That's gotta matter (to someone) or it simply doesn't matter (to the
group).
So many analogies come to mind!
(I hope this is helping OP Thomas Ambros and his shop.)
Do you want to distribute the latest whatzit via AT&T or via minivan?
Turns out the minivan has way more bandwidth (perhaps ironic),
but AT&T gives better response time. Which is more important?
Then Ed said:
> I spent 10 years in the z/OS ISV space negotiating with
> IBM Partnerworld etc. Difficult to see financial value in the
> experience and more difficult to describe the experience in
> positive terms. IBM chooses to be tough to deal with particularly
> compared to Redwood shores and Redmund.
I honestly wouldn't know, but am sad to hear it.
(Being a long time fan of whatever we call "z".)
I /will/ fault IBM for this:
More than any other HW/SW vendor, they use tech tricks
to achieve "political" ends. ("political" meaning biz/competitive)
They exploit their entrenched position to their own detriment.
Stop it!
-- R; <><
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux on System z, visit
http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
