Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
I just setup jzos, tomcat and JSPWiki on z/os 1.6 with saf security. Works great. -Rob Schramm sysprog This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/11/2005 at 12:45 PM, Rob Wunderlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I have contributed to both CBT and Open Source. In my experience, using CVS is a whole lot easier -- especially when trying to get updates into code originated by someone else. IEBUPDTX is a marvelous tool for integrating changes, and in the VM world the XEDIT support of aux, control and update files is also a good tool. What existing mechanisms are you referring to? SMP/E. XEDIT. SCLM. I don't understand the cross-platform argument. Simple: developers for a non-IBM platform don't have access to or familiarity with IBM tools. That provides an argument in favor of, e.g., sourceforge, but it is an argument that does not apply when the software is not cross-platform. An interesting perception that these are PC tools. I'm not concerned with such misconceptions; I'm concerned with whether you can make a case for expending the resources for such a case. Several responses in this thread mentioned that the PC world can't run or isn't an audience for the contents of the CBT tape. I don't understand that comment, as the CBT tape is already publicly available on the web. How many of those PC users are running Hercules, want to or even know what it is? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:58:54 -0300, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Several responses in this thread mentioned that the PC world can't run or isn't an audience for the contents of the CBT tape. I don't understand that comment, as the CBT tape is already publicly available on the web. How many of those PC users are running Hercules, want to or even know what it is? Sorry, my point wasn't clear. What I meant was that the target audience for MVS materials is the MVS platform. Changing the web distribution site does not make these materials any more or less available/interesting to non-MVS types. -Rob -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/12/2005 at 08:00 PM, Ian Metcalfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Of course, there is the issue of WHERE to develop (legally) is an impediment. That's a no-brainer; the companies interested in an open source project develop on their own machines. Now, if you want people contributing code independently of their employers, then you'll have to wait for IBM to offer hobbyist licenses for z/OS and z/VM; that's not something that we can do anything about. If that's your concern, then you'll need to make a business case to IBM rather than to this list. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 08/12/2005 at 01:51 AM, Peter Pfaffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: So what's the point? Let us do real community development The CBT tape *is* real community development, and a lot of the stuff on it has multiple authors. Again, the Devil is in the details; as long as a more modern platform can't be shown to have advantages for the developers, there's no reason to switch to it. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
Peter, We share more than a first name. I agree with your point that new blood thinking needs to happen for this environment to survive. I also agree that cooperative development of freeware tools would be A Good Thing(TM). However, where is the freeware interface to the build process on the mainframe? Whose mainframe can the build be performed on? Can it be customized by user to build on their own private mainframe? Eclipse (which I gather in its non-IBM-enhanced form is open source and free) may interface to z/OS Unix Services without charge, but can it submit a batch compile and return all of the results to the workstation and/or to an off-z/OS repository? Can build versions that were built on different versions/releases of the mainframe OS be tracked and stored separately? There are a lot of questions like that which need answers before any adoption can or will happen. Just having a cooperative writing and modification and documentation and bug-tracking environment doesn't help if you cannot build and install. Some of the interfaces that have been suggested are large-$ software on the z/OS side. I have seen quotes of USD$5K per seat for WSED or it's successor. Many shops, large and small, just can not justify that kind of cost. Until there are low or no-cost options, non-legacy development of legacy code can not happen cooperatively. The BUILD options are crucial to adoption. Until/unless they exist, the rest is just spinning your proverbial wheels. It is probably more than double the work, because if you adopt the development environment, you then have to manually transport it to z/OS (or z/VM) for build, and manually transport the results back. That is just not cost-effective or productivity-enhancing. Maybe the first cooperative development should be a consistent build capability, followed immediately by highly customizable independent change-control interfaces that do not depend on high-cost software on the mainframe. WRT WIKI, I can see it might be an alternative way to store and organize discussions and knowledge sets. I will withhold judgment until I know more. Lastly, I agree with you that more community is better. How to get there is the hard part. Some dinos will need to be dragged there kicking and screaming, and staked down with ropes and chains to boot. Some of us may just wander over for a look-see, WHEN the right tools are available. Regards, Peter _ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
From: Peter Pfaffner ... If we (the IBM-MAIN community and the most valuable source at all) would adopt faster to WIKI's (as a knowledgebase) and/or SourceForge (sorry to CBT) our loved OS would be much more attractive to newbies. How so ???. Everything we currently offer via cbt is EBCDIC in xmit format. What conceivable use and/or interest is that to some kid on a home PC ???. It might be considered for (L)GPL, but there are a *lot* of contributors to ask first. A Wiki might be an option for a knowledgebase, but given that (generally) anybody can update them people may be averse to contributing to that as well. And who is going to host all this ???. CBT is ok but incompatible with anything else than MVS and pretty much the DINO style. - see above. MVS (and its derivatives) is what we do. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Wouldn't it be WIKI and SourceForge time?
Hi all gentle listers,
I'm a MVS/OS390/zOS professional for many years (oops more than 25, but
STILL under 50 ;-).
One thing that bothers me for at least 2-3 years, following many
discussions about the future of the MVS-Platform, is the slow adoption
rate to new technologies for OUR use.
First question of CEO/CFO/CIO/Board of Directors: Where is the profit in
it? Does it increase market share/reduce expenses/increase revenue?
Business purpose first, technology purpose later. Slow adoption has much
more to do with business reasons than retrograde technologists (i.e., us).
*Some* of us are doing this stuff ourselves, just not on our employer's
time or equipment, since they do not seem interested in it.
If we (the IBM-MAIN community, the most valuable source at all) would
adopt faster to WIKI's (as a knowledgebase) and/or SourceForge (sorry to
CBT) our loved OS would be much more attractive to newbies.
I know, this sounds like a call to revolution. But please take it as a
recommendation to evolution.
Cart before horse. What advantage is WIKI over IBM-MAIN and other mailing
lists? What added benefit would list members or lurkers get (other than
experience using WIKI, which can be gotten elsewhere)?
Sourceforge is a wonderful resource and community. Today, NONE of the tools
used to make/build/test software in that (sourceforge) world can help you
when you have to update a CICS COBOL program to fix a bug, or get a patch
from IBM for the operating system and apply it across 20 LPAR's with no
disruption of business. Under z/OS, the *ix tools aren't even standard GNU
tools, (though that situation is improving, slowly, as ports are completed),
and most of those tools ONLY apply to the Unix Services environment and file
systems. None of them helps in the daily jobs our employers pay us to
perform. Not yet, anyway.
CAN something like sourceforge be used to perform controlled maintenance of
CICS COBOL and the other MVS projects we must support? Yes, they *can*, but
unless IBM writes it, promotes it, and supports it, no business manager is
going to allow you use it. Too much business and career risk.
It has very little to do with technology and everything to do with business.
IBM has moved very fast (compared to IBM 10 years ago) to internet
standards and has donated really huge amounts of man years to the open
source community (see Eclipse, CloudScape, ICU and many many others).
Are'nt we obliged to do the same? It is'nt hard to maintain a WIKI or to
use CVS or Subversion. Why don't we do that?
Even IBM went to uci.sourceforge.net for it's Unicode libraries.
Just NOT for their installed base of batch programs and transaction
processing. And it *is* hard to use CVS for anything when you can't compile
CICS COBOL and link to a standard PDS LOADLIB for testing and QA and
Production. There aren't any promotion tools available for standard
change control procedures that all mainframe businesses MUST use (especially
ISO 9000 shops).
Please, don't get me wrong (I'm not an employee of wikipedia or
sourceforge and never will be :-). CBT is ok but incompatible with
anything else than MVS and pretty much the DINO style.
When z/OS Unix Services is indistinguishable from a standard GNU linux (and
not just posix) environment AND supports appropriate interfaces to current
MVS technology (i.e., transparent access to MVS/EBCDIC files and data from
all utilities), then maybe there will be a need/desire for a sourceforge
equivalent of CBT. Until then CBT does the job. It isn't broken, so
there's no need to fix it, much less replace it.
Sort of the same is true to Share and and the DinoRing (no offense
please). But {things are changing} faster as I really thought befor
entering Java/Eclipse and other really powerfull technologies.
If we want to survive, WE better should adopt.
When there is a profitable business reason to do it, then it will happen.
Not before.
Serious discussions (and opposite views) are very welcome.
Peter
_
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee
and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of
the
message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments from your system.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at
