Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

sipp...@sg.ibm.com (Timothy Sipples) writes:
> z/OS is UNIX(TM), certified by The Open Group and a trademark
> bearer. Linux is not UNIX, as it happens. Apple's macOS is UNIX, while
> iOS, tvOS, and watchOS are not. AIX is UNIX. The modern BSD family
> operating systems derived from "Networking Tape 2" (NetBSD, FreeBSD,
> OpenBSD, etc.) are not UNIX.

originally funded/developed by (renamed/reorged IBM disk division)
ADSTAR software VP ... as part of trying to work around the
communication group ... also provided venture/startup funding to
entities doing distributed computing support that would use mainframe
for disk storage.

I've mentioned before that senior disk engineer got talk scheduled at
world-wide, annual, internal communication group ... supposedly on 3174
performance ... but opened the talk that the IBM communication group was
going to be responsible for the IBM disk division. The issue was that
the communication group had corporate strategic responsibility for
everything that crossed datacenter walls and were fiercely fighting off
distributed computing and client/server ... trying to preserve their
(emulated) dumb terminal paradigm and install base. The disk division
was seeing data fleeing to more distributed computing platforms with
drop in disk sales ... their efforts to correct the problems were
constantly being veto'ed by the communication group. "POSIX" support was
part of work-around (since it didn't directly involve crossing the
datacenter walls) and funding distributed computing startups didn't
directly challenge communication group IBM ownership of everything (IBM)
that crossed the datacenter wall. The communication group stanglehold on
mainframe datacenters didn't just disks ... and a few years later IBM
goes into the red.

POSIX ... portable operating system interface ... originally 1988
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX
z/OS here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Compliant_via_compatibility_feature

trivia: "ADSTAR" was the furthest along with reoganization of IBM into
the 13 "baby blues" in preparation for breaking up the
company. reference gone behind paywall, but mostly lives free at wayback
machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20101120231857/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977353,00.html

then new CEO was brought in and the breakup reversed ... although as
predicted ... IBM disk group no long exists ... even tho CKD DASD
is still required ... but haven't been manufactored for decades,
all being emulated on industry standard fixed-block disks.

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Obect Oriented COBOL on z was Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Clark Morris]

[Default] On 19 Sep 2018 06:25:57 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
mkkha...@hotmail.com (Mohammad Khan) wrote:

>This is not new for them either. Remember when all their hardware products had 
>become "server"s or "z/OS is UNIX" or "COBOL now has object oriented 
>features". Not sure how many customers bought their hardware because it was a 
>"server" or how many bought z machine for their UNIX applications. As for 
>object oriented code in COBOL, I, in my limited experience, have not seen any. 
>But come on ... you want to rob the CxO types of their talking points?

I looked at Object-Oriented COBOL in COBOL for OS390 and VM and
because of lack of infra-structure at the time and no obvious need, I
did not pursue it further.  Object Oriented COBOL probably got wider
use in the PC and Unix environments because the infrastructure is
there and it may make interfacing with browsers easier.

Clark Morris
>
>mkk
>
>On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:51:48 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>>Indeed. That's what I'm getting out of this: it's MBAM, only worse. And is 
>>going to doom IBM if they don't smarten up.
>>
>> 
>>
>>Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant:
>>
>>https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines
>>
>> 
>>
>>I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I've had my 
>>frustrations with it, but it's been Big Blue and a good thing for decades. 
>>Now it seems bent on self-destruction, and I'm watching its death-spiral and 
>>wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the same 
>>way, but they sure don't *appear* to be worried: it feels like it's "full 
>>speed ahead, that can't possibly be an iceberg up there!" and that's both sad 
>>and scary. I'm not likely to give up on it - I have a proven track record of 
>>sticking with things long after it's sensible, I'm afraid - but I can't say 
>>I'm enjoying the current arc.
>>
>> 
>>
>>.phsiii
>>
>
>--
>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

sme...@gmu.edu (Seymour J Metz) writes:
> cloud = timesharing
>
> Someone else deploys the infrastructure, to you it's a black box. Less
> control but also less manpower. Some legal issues.
>
> No, z/OS is not a cloud, but neither is AIX, *bsd, Linux, windows or
> Solaris; it's the deployment that makes it a cloud or not a cloud. You
> can have a cloud with z/OS just as much as you can have one with,
> e.g., Linux.

In 1968, there were two commercial spin-offs from the IBM Cambridge
Science Center ... doing virtual machine based online (commercial)
service bureaus. One of the big issues was providing 7x24 non-stop
operation. This was in the days when IBM leased the hardware and charges
was based on number of hours per month ... based on the "system" clock
... which would run whenever any CPU and/or channel was busy (and
continue to run for 400ms after everything was idle). 

There was lots of work on CP67 to reduce offshift charges when
(initially) use was light (and little revenue based on online use)
... this included dark room operation ... not requiring onsite operator
... as well as special terminal channel program that would go to sleep
when no characters were arriving ... but would immediately wake up to
accept incoming characters (allowing system clock & charges to stop when
system idle). They also fairly quickly moved up the value stream
specializing in offering services to the financial industry and had to
provide significant security features (when multiple competing financial
operations all using the same systems).

past scince center posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech.

Trivia: long after IBM changed from leased to selling hardware ... MVS
still had timer event that would wake up every 400ms (to make sure
system clock never stopped).

other triva: science center also started offering its virtual machine
CP67 services to other internal IBM operations as well as (free) to
various employees and students at various institutions of higher
learning in the Cambridge/Boston area. CSC had also ported apl\360
(typically ran with 16kbyte workspace) to CMS as CMS\APL ... including
allowing workspace to be virtual address space size and offering API for
system services (like file read/write) ... greatly expanding the
real-world applications that could be done on APL. Early user was
business planning/forcasting from IBM Armonk hdqtrs that loaded the most
holy of IBM data (detailed customer information) on the system ... for
modeling ... and significant security had to be demonstrated ... making
sure people like MIT students wouldn't be able to access corporate data.

For over decade the large cloud operations have claimed they assemble
their own server systems for 1/3rd the price of brand name server
systems (a typical cloud megadatacenter will have over half million
blade systems), likely part of the motivation for IBM selling off its
server product business ... along with announcements from the server
chip (processors, etc) makers were shipping over half their chips
directly to the large cloud operations.

The large cloud operations have reduced the cost of their servers so
drastically that they are able to significantly over provision for
"on-demand" (i.e. huge number of idle systems that can be instantly
"on-demand" operation) ... these costs are possibly 1/100,000 the
cost/BIPS of typical IBM mainframe. Because they have reduced server
costs so significantly power has become increasing major portion
of cloud megadatacenter ... and they have put significant pressure on
server chip makers to optimize execution power consumption as well as
drop to zero when systems are idle (but instantly on for "on-demand).

There are some number of vendors looking at leverage a lot of the
enormous work down by the cloud megadatacenters for marketing in-house
cloud operations to businesses.

The comparison to the 60s virtual machine commercial online operation
...  is cloud datacenter (with over half million systems) typically
operate with staff of 80-120 people (compared to cp/67 dark room
operation) ... and power/cooling dropping to zero when systems are idle
... but are instantly on (compared to 360 channel programs allowing
channel to go idle allowing system meter to stop ... but instantly on)
... as well as quite a bit of work on security.

Early 70s also had TYMSHARE (on west coast) offering online commercial
services (now with VM370). In Aug1976, TYMSHARE also started offering is
CMS-based online computer conference "free" to SHARE as VMSHARE
... archives here:
http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare

other trivia: as undergraduate in the 60s, I was brought into small
group in Boeing CFO office to help with consolidating all dataprocessing
into Boeing Computer Services (independent business unit to better
monetize the investment, just renton datacenter had something between
$200M-$300M, 60s dollars, in 360 mainframes, 360/65s were arriving
faster than they could be installed, boxes constantly being 

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Tom Marchant]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 06:24:39 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:

>6-point type

The last OS/2 system that I had was Warp/4. It included a word processor 
that could create and print documents with a font as small as 0.2 point.

I once set the font for a document to that value, printed it on a high 
resolution printer, and gave it to a colleague who had better eyes than 
mine. He was able to read it.

Hey, it is Friday.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[scott Ford]

I think one of the points here is that System Z and cloud being cost
effective or aka ROI ,mass they say in sales speak.
I realize there is always a cost of doing business, but nowadays small ISVs
like us get hurt with the costs of cloud and other
Items, I can tell you AWS is very expensive.

Scott

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 9:25 AM Charles Mills  wrote:

> > (*) Unless there's some weird embedded UNIX(TM) in some popular
> product(s), but (after a bit of checking) I don't think so.
>
> You are almost certainly correct in your (not) thinking because of the
> licensing costs associated with UNIX. Almost by definition, popular = cheap
> = no UNIX license fees.
>
> Lots of embedded Linux out there. My satellite TV set-top box came with a
> notice (in about 6-point type) that I could have the source code if I
> wanted
> it.
>
> Charles
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:42 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud
>
> Mohammad Khan wrote:
> >Remember when all their hardware products had become
> >"server"s
>
> IBM Z and LinuxONE systems are, most certainly, servers. Appropriate,
> accurate adjectives often appear in front of the word servers, such as
> mission-critical, enterprise, robust, scalable, and secure.
>
> >or "z/OS is UNIX"
>
> z/OS is UNIX(TM), certified by The Open Group and a trademark bearer. Linux
> is not UNIX, as it happens. Apple's macOS is UNIX, while iOS, tvOS, and
> watchOS are not. AIX is UNIX. The modern BSD family operating systems
> derived from "Networking Tape 2" (NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) are not
> UNIX.
>
> IBM is the largest UNIX server vendor both in terms of revenue share and
> unit share. Apple is most probably(*) the largest UNIX vendor in terms of
> number of machines, because every Mac they ship is a UNIX system. So, there
> you go: IBM and Apple dominate the UNIX market.
>
> >or "COBOL now has object oriented features".
>
> COBOL does have object oriented features, and it has had them since IBM
> COBOL for MVS and VM Release 2, introduced nearly a quarter century ago in
> 1994, and with significant OO improvements since.
>
> >Not sure how many customers bought their hardware because
> >it was a "server"
>
> Everybody. If their machines weren't/aren't servers (i.e. serving), what
> would they be doing instead?
>
> >or how many bought z machine for their UNIX applications.
>
> Many, converging on everybody since tons of middleware and runtimes for
> z/OS simply cannot operate without UNIX technologies.
>
> If you're trying to criticize marketing teams, I don't think you ought to
> start where and when they describe realities truthfully. Reality-based
> resets are worth applauding.
>
> (*) Unless there's some weird embedded UNIX(TM) in some popular product(s),
> but (after a bit of checking) I don't think so.
>
>
> 
> 
> Timothy Sipples
> IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
> Multi-Geography
> E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Scott Ford
IDMWORKS
z/OS Development

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Charles Mills]

> (*) Unless there's some weird embedded UNIX(TM) in some popular
product(s), but (after a bit of checking) I don't think so.

You are almost certainly correct in your (not) thinking because of the
licensing costs associated with UNIX. Almost by definition, popular = cheap
= no UNIX license fees.

Lots of embedded Linux out there. My satellite TV set-top box came with a
notice (in about 6-point type) that I could have the source code if I wanted
it.

Charles


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud

Mohammad Khan wrote:
>Remember when all their hardware products had become
>"server"s

IBM Z and LinuxONE systems are, most certainly, servers. Appropriate,
accurate adjectives often appear in front of the word servers, such as
mission-critical, enterprise, robust, scalable, and secure.

>or "z/OS is UNIX"

z/OS is UNIX(TM), certified by The Open Group and a trademark bearer. Linux
is not UNIX, as it happens. Apple's macOS is UNIX, while iOS, tvOS, and
watchOS are not. AIX is UNIX. The modern BSD family operating systems
derived from "Networking Tape 2" (NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) are not
UNIX.

IBM is the largest UNIX server vendor both in terms of revenue share and
unit share. Apple is most probably(*) the largest UNIX vendor in terms of
number of machines, because every Mac they ship is a UNIX system. So, there
you go: IBM and Apple dominate the UNIX market.

>or "COBOL now has object oriented features".

COBOL does have object oriented features, and it has had them since IBM
COBOL for MVS and VM Release 2, introduced nearly a quarter century ago in
1994, and with significant OO improvements since.

>Not sure how many customers bought their hardware because
>it was a "server"

Everybody. If their machines weren't/aren't servers (i.e. serving), what
would they be doing instead?

>or how many bought z machine for their UNIX applications.

Many, converging on everybody since tons of middleware and runtimes for
z/OS simply cannot operate without UNIX technologies.

If you're trying to criticize marketing teams, I don't think you ought to
start where and when they describe realities truthfully. Reality-based
resets are worth applauding.

(*) Unless there's some weird embedded UNIX(TM) in some popular product(s),
but (after a bit of checking) I don't think so.



Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
Multi-Geography
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Timothy Sipples]

Mohammad Khan wrote:
>Remember when all their hardware products had become
>"server"s

IBM Z and LinuxONE systems are, most certainly, servers. Appropriate,
accurate adjectives often appear in front of the word servers, such as
mission-critical, enterprise, robust, scalable, and secure.

>or "z/OS is UNIX"

z/OS is UNIX(TM), certified by The Open Group and a trademark bearer. Linux
is not UNIX, as it happens. Apple's macOS is UNIX, while iOS, tvOS, and
watchOS are not. AIX is UNIX. The modern BSD family operating systems
derived from "Networking Tape 2" (NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) are not
UNIX.

IBM is the largest UNIX server vendor both in terms of revenue share and
unit share. Apple is most probably(*) the largest UNIX vendor in terms of
number of machines, because every Mac they ship is a UNIX system. So, there
you go: IBM and Apple dominate the UNIX market.

>or "COBOL now has object oriented features".

COBOL does have object oriented features, and it has had them since IBM
COBOL for MVS and VM Release 2, introduced nearly a quarter century ago in
1994, and with significant OO improvements since.

>Not sure how many customers bought their hardware because
>it was a "server"

Everybody. If their machines weren't/aren't servers (i.e. serving), what
would they be doing instead?

>or how many bought z machine for their UNIX applications.

Many, converging on everybody since tons of middleware and runtimes for
z/OS simply cannot operate without UNIX technologies.

If you're trying to criticize marketing teams, I don't think you ought to
start where and when they describe realities truthfully. Reality-based
resets are worth applauding.

(*) Unless there's some weird embedded UNIX(TM) in some popular product(s),
but (after a bit of checking) I don't think so.


Timothy Sipples
IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM Z & LinuxONE,
Multi-Geography
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Mohammad Khan]

This is not new for them either. Remember when all their hardware products had 
become "server"s or "z/OS is UNIX" or "COBOL now has object oriented features". 
Not sure how many customers bought their hardware because it was a "server" or 
how many bought z machine for their UNIX applications. As for object oriented 
code in COBOL, I, in my limited experience, have not seen any. But come on ... 
you want to rob the CxO types of their talking points?

mkk

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:51:48 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:

> 
>
>Indeed. That's what I'm getting out of this: it's MBAM, only worse. And is 
>going to doom IBM if they don't smarten up.
>
> 
>
>Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant:
>
>https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines
>
> 
>
>I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I've had my 
>frustrations with it, but it's been Big Blue and a good thing for decades. Now 
>it seems bent on self-destruction, and I'm watching its death-spiral and 
>wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the same 
>way, but they sure don't *appear* to be worried: it feels like it's "full 
>speed ahead, that can't possibly be an iceberg up there!" and that's both sad 
>and scary. I'm not likely to give up on it - I have a proven track record of 
>sticking with things long after it's sensible, I'm afraid - but I can't say 
>I'm enjoying the current arc.
>
> 
>
>.phsiii
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[scott Ford]

Phil,

We do IdentityManagement and it *seems* development is either really slow
or dead.
Sales have slowed down, everyone s hot and bothered by DevOPS and Agile..
Interesting but weird times..

Scott

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 8:27 PM Jeff Savit  wrote:

> Thanks! I knew the phrase but didn’t recognize it as acronym. The MBA
> portion misled me
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 17, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Phil Smith III  wrote:
> >
> > Task. Management By Airline Magazine!
> >
> > From: Jeff Savit [mailto:jsa...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:06 PM
> > To: li...@akphs.com
> > Cc: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
> > Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud
> >
> > "MBAM"? I'm guessing that's MBA "something"
> >
> > I haven't had a chance to do more than skim the article, but it doesn't
> look good at all.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:51 PM Phil Smith III  wrote:
> > Mohammad Khan wrote, in part:
> > >May be Ginny & friends don't want to be left out of all this cool cloud
> talk at the parties, so they made the claim. It's not like that there is a
> Cloud(TM) certifying authority that will shut them up :).
> > Indeed. That’s what I’m getting out of this: it’s MBAM, only worse. And
> is going to doom IBM if they don’t smarten up.
> > Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant:
> >
> https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines
> > I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I’ve had my
> frustrations with it, but it’s been Big Blue and a good thing for decades.
> Now it seems bent on self-destruction, and I’m watching its death-spiral
> and wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the
> same way, but they sure don’t *appear* to be worried: it feels like it’s
> “full speed ahead, that can’t possibly be an iceberg up there!” and that’s
> both sad and scary. I’m not likely to give up on it – I have a proven track
> record of sticking with things long after it’s sensible, I’m afraid – but I
> can’t say I’m enjoying the current arc.
> > …phsiii
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Scott Ford
IDMWORKS
z/OS Development

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Jeff Savit]

Thanks! I knew the phrase but didn’t recognize it as acronym. The MBA portion 
misled me

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 17, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Phil Smith III  wrote:
> 
> Task. Management By Airline Magazine!
>  
> From: Jeff Savit [mailto:jsa...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:06 PM
> To: li...@akphs.com
> Cc: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud
>  
> "MBAM"? I'm guessing that's MBA "something"
> 
> I haven't had a chance to do more than skim the article, but it doesn't look 
> good at all.
>  
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:51 PM Phil Smith III  wrote:
> Mohammad Khan wrote, in part:
> >May be Ginny & friends don't want to be left out of all this cool cloud talk 
> >at the parties, so they made the claim. It's not like that there is a 
> >Cloud(TM) certifying authority that will shut them up :).
> Indeed. That’s what I’m getting out of this: it’s MBAM, only worse. And is 
> going to doom IBM if they don’t smarten up.
> Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant:
> https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines
> I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I’ve had my 
> frustrations with it, but it’s been Big Blue and a good thing for decades. 
> Now it seems bent on self-destruction, and I’m watching its death-spiral and 
> wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the same 
> way, but they sure don’t *appear* to be worried: it feels like it’s “full 
> speed ahead, that can’t possibly be an iceberg up there!” and that’s both sad 
> and scary. I’m not likely to give up on it – I have a proven track record of 
> sticking with things long after it’s sensible, I’m afraid – but I can’t say 
> I’m enjoying the current arc.
> …phsiii

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Phil Smith III]

Task. Management By Airline Magazine!

 

From: Jeff Savit [mailto:jsa...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:06 PM
To: li...@akphs.com
Cc: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud

 

"MBAM"? I'm guessing that's MBA "something"

I haven't had a chance to do more than skim the article, but it doesn't look 
good at all.

 

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:51 PM Phil Smith III mailto:li...@akphs.com> > wrote:

Mohammad Khan wrote, in part:

>May be Ginny & friends don't want to be left out of all this cool cloud talk 
>at the parties, so they made the claim. It's not like that there is a 
>Cloud(TM) certifying authority that will shut them up :).

Indeed. That’s what I’m getting out of this: it’s MBAM, only worse. And is 
going to doom IBM if they don’t smarten up.

Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant:

https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines

I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I’ve had my 
frustrations with it, but it’s been Big Blue and a good thing for decades. Now 
it seems bent on self-destruction, and I’m watching its death-spiral and 
wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the same 
way, but they sure don’t *appear* to be worried: it feels like it’s “full speed 
ahead, that can’t possibly be an iceberg up there!” and that’s both sad and 
scary. I’m not likely to give up on it – I have a proven track record of 
sticking with things long after it’s sensible, I’m afraid – but I can’t say I’m 
enjoying the current arc.

…phsiii


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Jeff Savit]

"MBAM"? I'm guessing that's MBA "something"

I haven't had a chance to do more than skim the article, but it doesn't
look good at all.

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:51 PM Phil Smith III  wrote:

> Mohammad Khan wrote, in part:
>
> >May be Ginny & friends don't want to be left out of all this cool cloud
> talk at the parties, so they made the claim. It's not like that there is a
> Cloud(TM) certifying authority that will shut them up :).
>
>
>
> Indeed. That’s what I’m getting out of this: it’s MBAM, only worse. And is
> going to doom IBM if they don’t smarten up.
>
>
>
> Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant:
>
>
> https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines
>
>
>
> I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I’ve had my
> frustrations with it, but it’s been Big Blue and a good thing for decades.
> Now it seems bent on self-destruction, and I’m watching its death-spiral
> and wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the
> same way, but they sure don’t **appear** to be worried: it feels like
> it’s “full speed ahead, that can’t possibly be an iceberg up there!” and
> that’s both sad and scary. I’m not likely to give up on it – I have a
> proven track record of sticking with things long after it’s sensible, I’m
> afraid – but I can’t say I’m enjoying the current arc.
>
>
>
> …phsiii
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Phil Smith III]

Mohammad Khan wrote, in part:

>May be Ginny & friends don't want to be left out of all this cool cloud talk 
>at the parties, so they made the claim. It's not like that there is a 
>Cloud(TM) certifying authority that will shut them up :).

 

Indeed. That's what I'm getting out of this: it's MBAM, only worse. And is 
going to doom IBM if they don't smarten up.

 

Article I tripped across, badly edited but trenchant:

https://seekingalpha-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4205420-sad-decline-international-business-machines

 

I (like most on this list) have made my career around IBM. I've had my 
frustrations with it, but it's been Big Blue and a good thing for decades. Now 
it seems bent on self-destruction, and I'm watching its death-spiral and 
wishing I knew some way to stop it. I suppose Ginny & co. may feel the same 
way, but they sure don't *appear* to be worried: it feels like it's "full speed 
ahead, that can't possibly be an iceberg up there!" and that's both sad and 
scary. I'm not likely to give up on it - I have a proven track record of 
sticking with things long after it's sensible, I'm afraid - but I can't say I'm 
enjoying the current arc.

 

.phsiii


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Seymour J Metz]

Just as OS/390 was not called z/OS; ObJackWeb "Only the names have been changed 
to protect the innocent."


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Mohammad Khan 
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud

May be Ginny & friends don't want to be left out of all this cool cloud talk at 
the parties, so they made the claim. It's not like that there is a Cloud(TM) 
certifying authority that will shut them up :). Service bureaus were surely 
very much like clouds but were not called clouds and there are not many left 
that would let you run your own z/OS instance today.

mkk


On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:21:50 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:

>OK, so what do we mean by "cloud"? What *customers* seem to mean is "a compute 
>platform where I can run my stuff but not have to deal with buying hardware 
>and racking and cabling it and in general all the work of running a data 
>center". By which definition, of course, traditional timesharing fits.
>
>
>
>For x86, this is currently AWS and Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure 
>(and not HPE Helion). For z, it's more like the IBM Dallas developer systems, 
>where you can rent a virtual machine that runs z/OS or z/VM or Linux, and then 
>do whatever you want with that OS.
>
>
>
>My conclusion is that the vendors (and IBM) who are saying "IBM Z and cloud" 
>are not being honest with themselves. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it 
>one, and saying "We like IBM Z and it *can* do cloud-ish stuff, therefore we 
>will say it's good for cloud" is not a rational (much less convincing) 
>argument.
>
>
>
>Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. But the relative silence on this thread 
>tends to suggest that nobody else buys it either. Well, nobody besides Ginny & 
>Co.
>
>
>
>.phsiii
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Mohammad Khan]

May be Ginny & friends don't want to be left out of all this cool cloud talk at 
the parties, so they made the claim. It's not like that there is a Cloud(TM) 
certifying authority that will shut them up :). Service bureaus were surely 
very much like clouds but were not called clouds and there are not many left 
that would let you run your own z/OS instance today.  

mkk


On Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:21:50 -0400, Phil Smith III  wrote:

>OK, so what do we mean by "cloud"? What *customers* seem to mean is "a compute 
>platform where I can run my stuff but not have to deal with buying hardware 
>and racking and cabling it and in general all the work of running a data 
>center". By which definition, of course, traditional timesharing fits.
>
> 
>
>For x86, this is currently AWS and Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure 
>(and not HPE Helion). For z, it's more like the IBM Dallas developer systems, 
>where you can rent a virtual machine that runs z/OS or z/VM or Linux, and then 
>do whatever you want with that OS.
>
> 
>
>My conclusion is that the vendors (and IBM) who are saying "IBM Z and cloud" 
>are not being honest with themselves. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it 
>one, and saying "We like IBM Z and it *can* do cloud-ish stuff, therefore we 
>will say it's good for cloud" is not a rational (much less convincing) 
>argument.
>
> 
>
>Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. But the relative silence on this thread 
>tends to suggest that nobody else buys it either. Well, nobody besides Ginny & 
>Co.
>
> 
>
>.phsiii
>

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[scott Ford]

Yes, we have the cloud before if was “popular”, it was called a Service
Bureau, which did your work and charged appropriately.
Now part of it is diy and your charged more.


Scott

On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 4:04 PM Seymour J Metz  wrote:

> cloud = timesharing
>
> Someone else deploys the infrastructure, to you it's a black box. Less
> control but also less manpower. Some legal issues.
>
> No, z/OS is not a cloud, but neither is AIX, *bsd, Linux, windows or
> Solaris; it's the deployment that makes it a cloud or not a cloud. You can
> have a cloud with z/OS just as much as you can have one with, e.g., Linux.
>
>
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
>
> 
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf
> of Phil Smith III 
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 1:21 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud
>
> OK, so what do we mean by "cloud"? What *customers* seem to mean is "a
> compute platform where I can run my stuff but not have to deal with buying
> hardware and racking and cabling it and in general all the work of running
> a data center". By which definition, of course, traditional timesharing
> fits.
>
>
>
> For x86, this is currently AWS and Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft
> Azure (and not HPE Helion). For z, it's more like the IBM Dallas developer
> systems, where you can rent a virtual machine that runs z/OS or z/VM or
> Linux, and then do whatever you want with that OS.
>
>
>
> My conclusion is that the vendors (and IBM) who are saying "IBM Z and
> cloud" are not being honest with themselves. Calling a tail a leg doesn't
> make it one, and saying "We like IBM Z and it *can* do cloud-ish stuff,
> therefore we will say it's good for cloud" is not a rational (much less
> convincing) argument.
>
>
>
> Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. But the relative silence on this
> thread tends to suggest that nobody else buys it either. Well, nobody
> besides Ginny & Co.
>
>
>
> .phsiii
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Scott Ford
IDMWORKS
z/OS Development

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Seymour J Metz]

cloud = timesharing

Someone else deploys the infrastructure, to you it's a black box. Less control 
but also less manpower. Some legal issues.

No, z/OS is not a cloud, but neither is AIX, *bsd, Linux, windows or Solaris; 
it's the deployment that makes it a cloud or not a cloud. You can have a cloud 
with z/OS just as much as you can have one with, e.g., Linux.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Phil Smith III 
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 1:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud

OK, so what do we mean by "cloud"? What *customers* seem to mean is "a compute 
platform where I can run my stuff but not have to deal with buying hardware and 
racking and cabling it and in general all the work of running a data center". 
By which definition, of course, traditional timesharing fits.



For x86, this is currently AWS and Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure 
(and not HPE Helion). For z, it's more like the IBM Dallas developer systems, 
where you can rent a virtual machine that runs z/OS or z/VM or Linux, and then 
do whatever you want with that OS.



My conclusion is that the vendors (and IBM) who are saying "IBM Z and cloud" 
are not being honest with themselves. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one, 
and saying "We like IBM Z and it *can* do cloud-ish stuff, therefore we will 
say it's good for cloud" is not a rational (much less convincing) argument.



Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. But the relative silence on this thread 
tends to suggest that nobody else buys it either. Well, nobody besides Ginny & 
Co.



.phsiii


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Matt Hogstrom]

I think Cloud means two different things on whether cloud is a noun or a verb.  
For those describing Cloud as a noun its a place where things are cheap and 
there is no infrastructure.  Others describe noun as a verb which is about 
agility, process and speed.  For the most part, when people describe z/OS as 
Cloud they are referring to the verb which means you can deploy and develop as 
fast as you can on cloud.

Thanks how I see the differentiation.

Matt Hogstrom
m...@hogstrom.org
+1-919-656-0564
PGP Key: 0x90ECB270

I just read a book on Stockholm Syndrome,
it was pretty bad at first, but, by the end I kind of liked it.

> On Sep 15, 2018, at 8:00 PM, scott Ford  wrote:
> 
> Phil,
> 
> My issue with cloud computing and multiple z/OS it’s not structured
> financially for small ISVs like us.
> Cost is a big issue with us..
> 
> Scott
> 
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 1:22 PM Phil Smith III  wrote:
> 
>> OK, so what do we mean by "cloud"? What *customers* seem to mean is "a
>> compute platform where I can run my stuff but not have to deal with buying
>> hardware and racking and cabling it and in general all the work of running
>> a data center". By which definition, of course, traditional timesharing
>> fits.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For x86, this is currently AWS and Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft
>> Azure (and not HPE Helion). For z, it's more like the IBM Dallas developer
>> systems, where you can rent a virtual machine that runs z/OS or z/VM or
>> Linux, and then do whatever you want with that OS.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> My conclusion is that the vendors (and IBM) who are saying "IBM Z and
>> cloud" are not being honest with themselves. Calling a tail a leg doesn't
>> make it one, and saying "We like IBM Z and it *can* do cloud-ish stuff,
>> therefore we will say it's good for cloud" is not a rational (much less
>> convincing) argument.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. But the relative silence on this
>> thread tends to suggest that nobody else buys it either. Well, nobody
>> besides Ginny & Co.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> .phsiii
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>> 
> -- 
> Scott Ford
> IDMWORKS
> z/OS Development
> 
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[scott Ford]

Phil,

My issue with cloud computing and multiple z/OS it’s not structured
financially for small ISVs like us.
Cost is a big issue with us..

Scott

On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 1:22 PM Phil Smith III  wrote:

> OK, so what do we mean by "cloud"? What *customers* seem to mean is "a
> compute platform where I can run my stuff but not have to deal with buying
> hardware and racking and cabling it and in general all the work of running
> a data center". By which definition, of course, traditional timesharing
> fits.
>
>
>
> For x86, this is currently AWS and Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft
> Azure (and not HPE Helion). For z, it's more like the IBM Dallas developer
> systems, where you can rent a virtual machine that runs z/OS or z/VM or
> Linux, and then do whatever you want with that OS.
>
>
>
> My conclusion is that the vendors (and IBM) who are saying "IBM Z and
> cloud" are not being honest with themselves. Calling a tail a leg doesn't
> make it one, and saying "We like IBM Z and it *can* do cloud-ish stuff,
> therefore we will say it's good for cloud" is not a rational (much less
> convincing) argument.
>
>
>
> Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. But the relative silence on this
> thread tends to suggest that nobody else buys it either. Well, nobody
> besides Ginny & Co.
>
>
>
> .phsiii
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Scott Ford
IDMWORKS
z/OS Development

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Phil Smith III]

OK, so what do we mean by "cloud"? What *customers* seem to mean is "a compute 
platform where I can run my stuff but not have to deal with buying hardware and 
racking and cabling it and in general all the work of running a data center". 
By which definition, of course, traditional timesharing fits.

 

For x86, this is currently AWS and Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure 
(and not HPE Helion). For z, it's more like the IBM Dallas developer systems, 
where you can rent a virtual machine that runs z/OS or z/VM or Linux, and then 
do whatever you want with that OS.

 

My conclusion is that the vendors (and IBM) who are saying "IBM Z and cloud" 
are not being honest with themselves. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one, 
and saying "We like IBM Z and it *can* do cloud-ish stuff, therefore we will 
say it's good for cloud" is not a rational (much less convincing) argument.

 

Again, I'd love to be proven wrong. But the relative silence on this thread 
tends to suggest that nobody else buys it either. Well, nobody besides Ginny & 
Co.

 

.phsiii


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[David Crayford]

On 15/09/2018 4:29 AM, scott Ford wrote:

Jerry,

I agree, but zConnect EE was pricy like MQ..it’s hard to sell a product
that will cost a customer more to install.


Why do you need to use z/OS Connect? If all you need is a Java 
Application Server, which is essentially what z/OS Connect is, then
you can ship your product with Tomcat, Jetty, Spring Boot or whatever 
for free. You have the added benefit that it's open source so
you can fix bugs and/or improve it as opposed to the closed ecosystem of 
WLP.  If the customer already has WAS/WLP installed and would
prefer to use them you can simply ship your WAR files and simply drop 
them into WLP.


It's the same as MQ. Websphere MQ is a fantastic product but there are 
numerous free, open source products which will do a great job

for a vendor looking to save money.


Regards,
Scott

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:16 PM Jerry Whitteridge 
wrote:


z/OSMF and z/OS Connect target different areas. I'd look at z/OSMF for
infrastructure tasks and z/OS Connect (its new name) for actual
applications.

They both have the ability for API translation and exposure.

Jerry Whitteridge
Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect
GTS - Safeway Account
602 527 4871 Mobile
jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com

IBM Services

IBM Mainframe Discussion List  wrote on
09/14/2018 12:47:09 PM:


From: scott Ford 
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date: 09/14/2018 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 

Phil,All:

Exact question this am during a daily meeting. We looked zConnect but
looked like was expensive to develope a product around, we are looking
At Zosmf...kinda interesting, living proof you teach an old dawg new

tricks.


Scott

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:54 AM R.S. 

wrote:

W dniu 2018-09-14 o 03:38, Phil Smith III pisze:

Well, I appreciate the answers thus far, but they're vague and

platitudinous.



Sure, an application on Z should often stay on Z, but that's not what

anybody means by "cloud". In fact, given that the vast majority of
application environments are not on Z, saying "stay on "

is,

if anything, an argument that Z is *not* a good cloud platform.



Resource sharing/virtualization are good, but ISTR one or two

companies

that are managing to do a bit of that on Intel (I think they're called
Amazon and Google and what's that other startup-oh yeah, Microsoft);

not

compelling, sorry. Yes, z/VM is the best virtualization platform in a

lot

of ways. But again, that ain't where the action is, and calling a tail

a

leg doesn't make it one.



As for cost of instructions-TR/TRT and friends are also way cool.

Surprise, that isn't where applications spend most of their time.



Looking forward to more convincing arguments.

Convicing? Whom to convince?  Seriously, are we talking about rational
arguments or just convincing arguments?
I see no hope for mainframe when talking about "convincing" arguments.
Sorry, every "airline magazine" article or opinion claims it's old,
obsolete, and so on. Nevermind what is true.

Regarding cloud - this is similar story, much less rational arguments a
lot of "convincing" ones. There is no single definition of cloud, but I
woudl say that EDS in the beginnings was kind of cloud - you compute on
someone else's computer. IT as a service.
Of course some people narrow the vision of cloud to Windows and M$
subsystems (MSSQL, etc.), maybe also Linux with popular open-source
things lika Apache, mySQL, etc. So, there is no place for other
platforms. Why? Because nobody mentioned it. However some companies do
use mainframe applications and they can hear from cloud provider

"sorry,

we don't have such thing".

Regarding Amazon and Google - yes, they don't use mainframes. However
their business (especially Google) is different than yours. Not

everyone

need oer 1 million PC machines spread across the world. Cheap machines
with no redundant features.  That's why things like disk arrays, remote
copy services or DR data rooms are still in sale.


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland




==

Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomości:

- powiadom nas o tym w mailu zwrotnym (dziękujemy!),
- usuń trwale tę wiadomość (i wszystkie kopie, które wydrukowałeś lub
zapisałeś na dysku).
Wiadomość ta może zawierać chronione prawem informacje, które może
wykorzystać tylko adresat.Przypominamy, że każdy, kto rozpowszechnia
(kopiuje, rozprowadza) tę wiadomość lub podejmuje podobne działania,
narusza prawo i może podlegać karze.

mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warsza

u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3Dz-2Bsiedzib-25C4-2585-2Bw-2BWarsza-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-

siA1ZOg=0avyVTgpzBFlo1QAgHxCtqKtRE6Ldl_1M9tI2p7Kc8E=Pv4VX_mte8HMjZpaSFkeOhwAMQLMB_fKTVDwyOgfK08=qFT7aDmiI4sIDouaLNV2YJ6D-


j51LWrFBt_oPu4kjGY=>wie,

ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail:

kont...@mbank.pl.

Sąd

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[scott Ford]

Jerry,

I agree, but zConnect EE was pricy like MQ..it’s hard to sell a product
that will cost a customer more to install.

Regards,
Scott

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:16 PM Jerry Whitteridge 
wrote:

> z/OSMF and z/OS Connect target different areas. I'd look at z/OSMF for
> infrastructure tasks and z/OS Connect (its new name) for actual
> applications.
>
> They both have the ability for API translation and exposure.
>
> Jerry Whitteridge
> Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect
> GTS - Safeway Account
> 602 527 4871 Mobile
> jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com
>
> IBM Services
>
> IBM Mainframe Discussion List  wrote on
> 09/14/2018 12:47:09 PM:
>
> > From: scott Ford 
> > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> > Date: 09/14/2018 12:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud
> > Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
> >
> > Phil,All:
> >
> > Exact question this am during a daily meeting. We looked zConnect but
> > looked like was expensive to develope a product around, we are looking
> > At Zosmf...kinda interesting, living proof you teach an old dawg new
> tricks.
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:54 AM R.S. 
> wrote:
> >
> > > W dniu 2018-09-14 o 03:38, Phil Smith III pisze:
> > > > Well, I appreciate the answers thus far, but they're vague and
> > > platitudinous.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure, an application on Z should often stay on Z, but that's not what
> > > anybody means by "cloud". In fact, given that the vast majority of
> > > application environments are not on Z, saying "stay on "
> is,
> > > if anything, an argument that Z is *not* a good cloud platform.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Resource sharing/virtualization are good, but ISTR one or two
> companies
> > > that are managing to do a bit of that on Intel (I think they're called
> > > Amazon and Google and what's that other startup-oh yeah, Microsoft);
> not
> > > compelling, sorry. Yes, z/VM is the best virtualization platform in a
> lot
> > > of ways. But again, that ain't where the action is, and calling a tail
> a
> > > leg doesn't make it one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As for cost of instructions-TR/TRT and friends are also way cool.
> > > Surprise, that isn't where applications spend most of their time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to more convincing arguments.
> > >
> > > Convicing? Whom to convince?  Seriously, are we talking about rational
> > > arguments or just convincing arguments?
> > > I see no hope for mainframe when talking about "convincing" arguments.
> > > Sorry, every "airline magazine" article or opinion claims it's old,
> > > obsolete, and so on. Nevermind what is true.
> > >
> > > Regarding cloud - this is similar story, much less rational arguments a
> > > lot of "convincing" ones. There is no single definition of cloud, but I
> > > woudl say that EDS in the beginnings was kind of cloud - you compute on
> > > someone else's computer. IT as a service.
> > > Of course some people narrow the vision of cloud to Windows and M$
> > > subsystems (MSSQL, etc.), maybe also Linux with popular open-source
> > > things lika Apache, mySQL, etc. So, there is no place for other
> > > platforms. Why? Because nobody mentioned it. However some companies do
> > > use mainframe applications and they can hear from cloud provider
> "sorry,
> > > we don't have such thing".
> > >
> > > Regarding Amazon and Google - yes, they don't use mainframes. However
> > > their business (especially Google) is different than yours. Not
> everyone
> > > need oer 1 million PC machines spread across the world. Cheap machines
> > > with no redundant features.  That's why things like disk arrays, remote
> > > copy services or DR data rooms are still in sale.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Radoslaw Skorupka
> > > Lodz, Poland
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==
> > >
> > > Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomości:
> > >
> > > - powiadom nas o tym w mailu zwrotnym (dziękujemy!),
> > > - usuń trwale tę wiadomość (i wszystkie kopie, które wydrukowałeś lub
> > > zapisałeś na dysku).
> &g

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Jerry Whitteridge]

z/OSMF and z/OS Connect target different areas. I'd look at z/OSMF for
infrastructure tasks and z/OS Connect (its new name) for actual
applications.

They both have the ability for API translation and exposure.

Jerry Whitteridge
Delivery Manager / Mainframe Architect
GTS - Safeway Account
602 527 4871 Mobile
jerry.whitteri...@ibm.com

IBM Services

IBM Mainframe Discussion List  wrote on
09/14/2018 12:47:09 PM:

> From: scott Ford 
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Date: 09/14/2018 12:47 PM
> Subject: Re: IBM Z and cloud
> Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
>
> Phil,All:
>
> Exact question this am during a daily meeting. We looked zConnect but
> looked like was expensive to develope a product around, we are looking
> At Zosmf...kinda interesting, living proof you teach an old dawg new
tricks.
>
>
> Scott
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:54 AM R.S. 
wrote:
>
> > W dniu 2018-09-14 o 03:38, Phil Smith III pisze:
> > > Well, I appreciate the answers thus far, but they're vague and
> > platitudinous.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure, an application on Z should often stay on Z, but that's not what
> > anybody means by "cloud". In fact, given that the vast majority of
> > application environments are not on Z, saying "stay on "
is,
> > if anything, an argument that Z is *not* a good cloud platform.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Resource sharing/virtualization are good, but ISTR one or two
companies
> > that are managing to do a bit of that on Intel (I think they're called
> > Amazon and Google and what's that other startup-oh yeah, Microsoft);
not
> > compelling, sorry. Yes, z/VM is the best virtualization platform in a
lot
> > of ways. But again, that ain't where the action is, and calling a tail
a
> > leg doesn't make it one.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As for cost of instructions-TR/TRT and friends are also way cool.
> > Surprise, that isn't where applications spend most of their time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Looking forward to more convincing arguments.
> >
> > Convicing? Whom to convince?  Seriously, are we talking about rational
> > arguments or just convincing arguments?
> > I see no hope for mainframe when talking about "convincing" arguments.
> > Sorry, every "airline magazine" article or opinion claims it's old,
> > obsolete, and so on. Nevermind what is true.
> >
> > Regarding cloud - this is similar story, much less rational arguments a
> > lot of "convincing" ones. There is no single definition of cloud, but I
> > woudl say that EDS in the beginnings was kind of cloud - you compute on
> > someone else's computer. IT as a service.
> > Of course some people narrow the vision of cloud to Windows and M$
> > subsystems (MSSQL, etc.), maybe also Linux with popular open-source
> > things lika Apache, mySQL, etc. So, there is no place for other
> > platforms. Why? Because nobody mentioned it. However some companies do
> > use mainframe applications and they can hear from cloud provider
"sorry,
> > we don't have such thing".
> >
> > Regarding Amazon and Google - yes, they don't use mainframes. However
> > their business (especially Google) is different than yours. Not
everyone
> > need oer 1 million PC machines spread across the world. Cheap machines
> > with no redundant features.  That's why things like disk arrays, remote
> > copy services or DR data rooms are still in sale.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Radoslaw Skorupka
> > Lodz, Poland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==
> >
> > Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomości:
> >
> > - powiadom nas o tym w mailu zwrotnym (dziękujemy!),
> > - usuń trwale tę wiadomość (i wszystkie kopie, które wydrukowałeś lub
> > zapisałeś na dysku).
> > Wiadomość ta może zawierać chronione prawem informacje, które może
> > wykorzystać tylko adresat.Przypominamy, że każdy, kto rozpowszechnia
> > (kopiuje, rozprowadza) tę wiadomość lub podejmuje podobne działania,
> > narusza prawo i może podlegać karze.
> >
> > mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warsza
> > 
u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3Dz-2Bsiedzib-25C4-2585-2Bw-2BWarsza-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg=DwIFaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-

>
siA1ZOg=0avyVTgpzBFlo1QAgHxCtqKtRE6Ldl_1M9tI2p7Kc8E=Pv4VX_mte8HMjZpaSFkeOhwAMQLMB_fKTVDwyOgfK08=qFT7aDmiI4sIDouaLNV2YJ6D-

> j51LWrFBt_oPu4kjGY=>wie,
> > ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail:
kont...@mbank.pl.
> > Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warsz

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[scott Ford]

Phil,All:

Exact question this am during a daily meeting. We looked zConnect but
looked like was expensive to develope a product around, we are looking
At Zosmf...kinda interesting, living proof you teach an old dawg new tricks.


Scott

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:54 AM R.S.  wrote:

> W dniu 2018-09-14 o 03:38, Phil Smith III pisze:
> > Well, I appreciate the answers thus far, but they're vague and
> platitudinous.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sure, an application on Z should often stay on Z, but that's not what
> anybody means by "cloud". In fact, given that the vast majority of
> application environments are not on Z, saying "stay on " is,
> if anything, an argument that Z is *not* a good cloud platform.
> >
> >
> >
> > Resource sharing/virtualization are good, but ISTR one or two companies
> that are managing to do a bit of that on Intel (I think they're called
> Amazon and Google and what's that other startup-oh yeah, Microsoft); not
> compelling, sorry. Yes, z/VM is the best virtualization platform in a lot
> of ways. But again, that ain't where the action is, and calling a tail a
> leg doesn't make it one.
> >
> >
> >
> > As for cost of instructions-TR/TRT and friends are also way cool.
> Surprise, that isn't where applications spend most of their time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Looking forward to more convincing arguments.
>
> Convicing? Whom to convince?  Seriously, are we talking about rational
> arguments or just convincing arguments?
> I see no hope for mainframe when talking about "convincing" arguments.
> Sorry, every "airline magazine" article or opinion claims it's old,
> obsolete, and so on. Nevermind what is true.
>
> Regarding cloud - this is similar story, much less rational arguments a
> lot of "convincing" ones. There is no single definition of cloud, but I
> woudl say that EDS in the beginnings was kind of cloud - you compute on
> someone else's computer. IT as a service.
> Of course some people narrow the vision of cloud to Windows and M$
> subsystems (MSSQL, etc.), maybe also Linux with popular open-source
> things lika Apache, mySQL, etc. So, there is no place for other
> platforms. Why? Because nobody mentioned it. However some companies do
> use mainframe applications and they can hear from cloud provider "sorry,
> we don't have such thing".
>
> Regarding Amazon and Google - yes, they don't use mainframes. However
> their business (especially Google) is different than yours. Not everyone
> need oer 1 million PC machines spread across the world. Cheap machines
> with no redundant features.  That's why things like disk arrays, remote
> copy services or DR data rooms are still in sale.
>
>
> --
> Radoslaw Skorupka
> Lodz, Poland
>
>
>
>
> ==
>
> Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomości:
>
> - powiadom nas o tym w mailu zwrotnym (dziękujemy!),
> - usuń trwale tę wiadomość (i wszystkie kopie, które wydrukowałeś lub
> zapisałeś na dysku).
> Wiadomość ta może zawierać chronione prawem informacje, które może
> wykorzystać tylko adresat.Przypominamy, że każdy, kto rozpowszechnia
> (kopiuje, rozprowadza) tę wiadomość lub podejmuje podobne działania,
> narusza prawo i może podlegać karze.
>
> mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warsza
> wie,
> ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl.
> Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru
> Sądowego, KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Kapitał zakładowy (opłacony w
> całości) według stanu na 01.01.2018 r. wynosi 169.248.488 złotych.
>
> If you are not the addressee of this message:
>
> - let us know by replying to this e-mail (thank you!),
> - delete this message permanently (including all the copies which you have
> printed out or saved).
> This message may contain legally protected information, which may be used
> exclusively by the addressee.Please be reminded that anyone who
> disseminates (copies, distributes) this message or takes any similar
> action, violates the law and may be penalised.
>
> mBank S.A. with its registered office in War
> saw,
> ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl.
> District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw, 12th Commercial Division of
> the National Court Register, KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Fully
> paid-up share capital amounting to PLN 169,248,488 as at 1 January 2018.
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 
Scott Ford
IDMWORKS
z/OS Development

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[R.S.]

W dniu 2018-09-14 o 03:38, Phil Smith III pisze:

Well, I appreciate the answers thus far, but they're vague and platitudinous.

  


Sure, an application on Z should often stay on Z, but that's not what anybody means by "cloud". 
In fact, given that the vast majority of application environments are not on Z, saying "stay on 
" is, if anything, an argument that Z is *not* a good cloud platform.

  


Resource sharing/virtualization are good, but ISTR one or two companies that 
are managing to do a bit of that on Intel (I think they're called Amazon and 
Google and what's that other startup-oh yeah, Microsoft); not compelling, 
sorry. Yes, z/VM is the best virtualization platform in a lot of ways. But 
again, that ain't where the action is, and calling a tail a leg doesn't make it 
one.

  


As for cost of instructions-TR/TRT and friends are also way cool. Surprise, 
that isn't where applications spend most of their time.

  


Looking forward to more convincing arguments.


Convicing? Whom to convince?  Seriously, are we talking about rational 
arguments or just convincing arguments?
I see no hope for mainframe when talking about "convincing" arguments. 
Sorry, every "airline magazine" article or opinion claims it's old, 
obsolete, and so on. Nevermind what is true.


Regarding cloud - this is similar story, much less rational arguments a 
lot of "convincing" ones. There is no single definition of cloud, but I 
woudl say that EDS in the beginnings was kind of cloud - you compute on 
someone else's computer. IT as a service.
Of course some people narrow the vision of cloud to Windows and M$ 
subsystems (MSSQL, etc.), maybe also Linux with popular open-source 
things lika Apache, mySQL, etc. So, there is no place for other 
platforms. Why? Because nobody mentioned it. However some companies do 
use mainframe applications and they can hear from cloud provider "sorry, 
we don't have such thing".


Regarding Amazon and Google - yes, they don't use mainframes. However 
their business (especially Google) is different than yours. Not everyone 
need oer 1 million PC machines spread across the world. Cheap machines 
with no redundant features.  That's why things like disk arrays, remote 
copy services or DR data rooms are still in sale.



--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland




==

Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomości:

- powiadom nas o tym w mailu zwrotnym (dziękujemy!),
- usuń trwale tę wiadomość (i wszystkie kopie, które wydrukowałeś lub zapisałeś 
na dysku).
Wiadomość ta może zawierać chronione prawem informacje, które może wykorzystać 
tylko adresat.Przypominamy, że każdy, kto rozpowszechnia (kopiuje, rozprowadza) 
tę wiadomość lub podejmuje podobne działania, narusza prawo i może podlegać 
karze.

mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warszawie, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 
Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl. Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. 
Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, KRS 025237, 
NIP: 526-021-50-88. Kapitał zakładowy (opłacony w całości) według stanu na 
01.01.2018 r. wynosi 169.248.488 złotych.

If you are not the addressee of this message:

- let us know by replying to this e-mail (thank you!),
- delete this message permanently (including all the copies which you have 
printed out or saved).
This message may contain legally protected information, which may be used 
exclusively by the addressee.Please be reminded that anyone who disseminates 
(copies, distributes) this message or takes any similar action, violates the 
law and may be penalised.

mBank S.A. with its registered office in Warsaw, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 
Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl. District Court for the Capital 
City of Warsaw, 12th Commercial Division of the National Court Register, KRS 
025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Fully paid-up share capital amounting to PLN 
169,248,488 as at 1 January 2018.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Phil Smith III]

Well, I appreciate the answers thus far, but they're vague and platitudinous.

 

Sure, an application on Z should often stay on Z, but that's not what anybody 
means by "cloud". In fact, given that the vast majority of application 
environments are not on Z, saying "stay on " is, if anything, an 
argument that Z is *not* a good cloud platform.

 

Resource sharing/virtualization are good, but ISTR one or two companies that 
are managing to do a bit of that on Intel (I think they're called Amazon and 
Google and what's that other startup-oh yeah, Microsoft); not compelling, 
sorry. Yes, z/VM is the best virtualization platform in a lot of ways. But 
again, that ain't where the action is, and calling a tail a leg doesn't make it 
one.

 

As for cost of instructions-TR/TRT and friends are also way cool. Surprise, 
that isn't where applications spend most of their time.

 

Looking forward to more convincing arguments.

 

.phsiii


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Clark Morris]

[Default] On 13 Sep 2018 13:45:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
sme...@gmu.edu (Seymour J Metz) wrote:

>The whole cloud thing is just hype. It's just time sharing with the serial 
>number filed off.
>
>>  but I'm stumped as to what it is about the mainframe that makes it so 
>> wonderful for cloud.
>
>Well, a half century of experience with virtualization doesn't hurt.
>
>> *   Mainframe MIPS are more expensive
>
>What is an instruction? Instructions are more expensive, but are function 
>points? How many instructions does it take to do, e.g., a TR on an x86?

While I agree that things can get confusing when comparing platforms,
the TR instruction (or the TRT) bring up an interesting question.
Which takes more machine cycles, the TR or the equivalent loop on a z,
on Intel?  The same question for TRT because I understand both are
relatively slow and expensive.  It would be interesting to compare
well optimized COBOL programs or sub-routines on the various
platforms.

Clark Morris

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[Seymour J Metz]

The whole cloud thing is just hype. It's just time sharing with the serial 
number filed off.

>  but I'm stumped as to what it is about the mainframe that makes it so 
> wonderful for cloud.

Well, a half century of experience with virtualization doesn't hurt.

> *   Mainframe MIPS are more expensive

What is an instruction? Instructions are more expensive, but are function 
points? How many instructions does it take to do, e.g., a TR on an x86?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Phil Smith III 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: IBM Z and cloud

I keep seeing things like a mailing today, "Mainframes and the Cloud: Made for 
Each Other". I'm as big a fan of IBM Z as the next guy, but I'm stumped as to 
what it is about the mainframe that makes it so wonderful for cloud.



What it see:

*   IBM Z storage is more expensive

*   Mainframe MIPS are more expensive

*   I/O bandwidth is not usually the issue (network, but not local)



Is this all just hype/hope? Or am I missing something?



Inquiring minds.



.phsiii






--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IBM Z and cloud

[R.S.]

W dniu 2018-09-13 o 20:19, Phil Smith III pisze:

I keep seeing things like a mailing today, "Mainframes and the Cloud: Made for Each 
Other". I'm as big a fan of IBM Z as the next guy, but I'm stumped as to what it is 
about the mainframe that makes it so wonderful for cloud.

  


What it see:

*   IBM Z storage is more expensive

*   Mainframe MIPS are more expensive

*   I/O bandwidth is not usually the issue (network, but not local)

  


Is this all just hype/hope? Or am I missing something?


Yes, few things.
First, what decides to choose given platform/OS? An application!
Yes, sometimes you haven't started writing it, but in many cases the 
application already exist and determine (more or less) the OS.


Second, manframe abilities to serve resources fulfill definition of the 
cloud (there many different ones). Yes, mainframe *is* cloud!


Third, when we consider wasted CPU cycles, ineffective storage usage, 
etc then Windows is cheaper. However for busy systems doing "right work" 
mainframe can be affordable.



BTW: Cloud does not exist. It's just someone else's computer.



--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland




==

Jeśli nie jesteś adresatem tej wiadomości:

- powiadom nas o tym w mailu zwrotnym (dziękujemy!),
- usuń trwale tę wiadomość (i wszystkie kopie, które wydrukowałeś lub zapisałeś 
na dysku).
Wiadomość ta może zawierać chronione prawem informacje, które może wykorzystać 
tylko adresat.Przypominamy, że każdy, kto rozpowszechnia (kopiuje, rozprowadza) 
tę wiadomość lub podejmuje podobne działania, narusza prawo i może podlegać 
karze.

mBank S.A. z siedzibą w Warszawie, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 
Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl. Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. 
Warszawy XII Wydział Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sądowego, KRS 025237, 
NIP: 526-021-50-88. Kapitał zakładowy (opłacony w całości) według stanu na 
01.01.2018 r. wynosi 169.248.488 złotych.

If you are not the addressee of this message:

- let us know by replying to this e-mail (thank you!),
- delete this message permanently (including all the copies which you have 
printed out or saved).
This message may contain legally protected information, which may be used 
exclusively by the addressee.Please be reminded that anyone who disseminates 
(copies, distributes) this message or takes any similar action, violates the 
law and may be penalised.

mBank S.A. with its registered office in Warsaw, ul. Senatorska 18, 00-950 
Warszawa,www.mBank.pl, e-mail: kont...@mbank.pl. District Court for the Capital 
City of Warsaw, 12th Commercial Division of the National Court Register, KRS 
025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. Fully paid-up share capital amounting to PLN 
169,248,488 as at 1 January 2018.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

IBM Z and cloud

[Phil Smith III]

I keep seeing things like a mailing today, "Mainframes and the Cloud: Made for 
Each Other". I'm as big a fan of IBM Z as the next guy, but I'm stumped as to 
what it is about the mainframe that makes it so wonderful for cloud. 

 

What it see:

*   IBM Z storage is more expensive

*   Mainframe MIPS are more expensive

*   I/O bandwidth is not usually the issue (network, but not local)

 

Is this all just hype/hope? Or am I missing something?

 

Inquiring minds.

 

.phsiii

 

 


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN