Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Aled Hughes]

I think you are right Phil. I recall the P70 purely for PWD customers. This was 
essentially replaced by FLEX (which sold in their hundreds) for PWD and 
Commercial users worldwide. Sadly 'killed off' by IBM after the Platform 
Solutions debacle. 

Cheers!
ALH

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Phil Smith <p...@voltage.com>
To: IBM-MAIN <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:39
Subject: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

Tony Harminc wrote, re  MP3000:
>Ah - you are quite right. And the P30 was the PWD machine, which did
>not change its model number when (effectively) converted to an H50 by
>the Linux add-on. There was never a P50 or P70, to my knowledge.

We were doing Linux at Linuxcare (who'd'a thunk), and I think that might be 
what we had: a de facto P70, even though it wasn't "legal". This wasn't 
cheating: it was with IBM's blessing (I think they had to give us a microcode 
fiddle to enable it).

I remember having 3480s as well, and noting that the tape drives were bigger 
than the CPU, which just felt wrong.

--
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: LzLabs in ComputerWorld - Multiprise 3000

[Mike Beer]

http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/rep_ca/0/897/ENUS199-240/


Am 13.12.2016 um 22:44 schrieb Tony Harminc:

On 13 December 2016 at 13:10, Pommier, Rex  wrote:

Tony, one correction to your comments.  The H70 was the two-way machine.  The 
H50 was the full speed uni, and the
H30 was a knee-capped uni.

Ah - you are quite right. And the P30 was the PWD machine, which did
not change its model number when (effectively) converted to an H50 by
the Linux add-on. There was never a P50 or P70, to my knowledge.

Tony H.

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


Mike Beer

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Phil Smith]

Tony Harminc wrote, re  MP3000:
>Ah - you are quite right. And the P30 was the PWD machine, which did
>not change its model number when (effectively) converted to an H50 by
>the Linux add-on. There was never a P50 or P70, to my knowledge.

We were doing Linux at Linuxcare (who'd'a thunk), and I think that might be 
what we had: a de facto P70, even though it wasn't "legal". This wasn't 
cheating: it was with IBM's blessing (I think they had to give us a microcode 
fiddle to enable it).

I remember having 3480s as well, and noting that the tape drives were bigger 
than the CPU, which just felt wrong.

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Tony Harminc]

On 13 December 2016 at 13:10, Pommier, Rex  wrote:
> Tony, one correction to your comments.  The H70 was the two-way machine.  The 
> H50 was the full speed uni, and the
> H30 was a knee-capped uni.

Ah - you are quite right. And the P30 was the PWD machine, which did
not change its model number when (effectively) converted to an H50 by
the Linux add-on. There was never a P50 or P70, to my knowledge.

Tony H.

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Parwez Hamid]

Re: MP3000 - nothing good about? If you wanted a full 'function' z System, 
there were alternative options 
available at the time.

The MP3000 addressed the requirements of a certain customer type/set with a 
different price point and. They 
didn't need the same functionality as other z customers of the time. 

In my book ESCON was a real channel and at the time the MP3000 was introduced 
there were lots
of large customers (banks, airlines, utilities etc) still using ESCON I/O. So 
no big deal if the MP3000 didn't have FICON. 

BTW: Are there customers who still have BUS/TAG and ESCON devices today. Yes, 
and they use the Optica channel 
convertor to attach to FICON channels :-)

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Pommier, Rex]

My turn.  :-)

Tony, one correction to your comments.  The H70 was the two-way machine.  The 
H50 was the full speed uni, and the H30 was a knee-capped uni.  At a prior job, 
we ran an H50 for several years, ESCON attached to an RVA (anybody remember 
them?  :-)  ) and parallel attached to tape and printer.  We didn't use the 
emulated I/O for anything.  Had a pair of Bus-Tech boxes that handled our 
TCP/IP traffic across ESCON I believe to the H50.  

Funny side story was that we got a know-it-all CxO came in and decided the 
mainframe was too expensive/large/outdated/whatever other negative thing he 
could come up with against it.  He decided we were going to get modern so he 
spent mega-bucks on an HP superdome with all the peripherals.  Physically a 
huge machine.  Well, he showed up one day to show off the new machine to the 
big-wigs and after bragging the HP up to them, he looked around for the 
mainframe he was replacing and literally couldn't find it even though it was 
right in front of him.  He didn't know we were running the mainframe on a box 
the size of a 2 drawer file cabinet.  A couple years later, he was gone, and a 
couple years after that the superdome was gone too.

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

On 13 December 2016 at 10:34, R.S. <r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl> wrote:

> I dare to disagree.

My turn...

> Although MP3000 was better than MP2000, it was still nothing good.

It was *much* better than the MP2000. Very much faster. It was a 390
G5 CPU. Even 2 x G5 on the top model (H50).

A note on the "development only" idea about this machine. There *were* 
development (PWD) models. We had one, at a much reduced price, and we also had 
a free "Linux option" that kept the model number unchanged (P30), but doubled 
the CPU speed and doubled the memory. IIRC the non-PWD models were H30 and H50.

> As a demonstration/learning/portable machine it was much to big.

Sure. The old P390s were about the best for that. But you could always connect 
remotely.

> As a production or development machine the I/O was really poor.

Well... Don't mix the two kinds of I/O. There was the P390/Integrated Server 
style of I/O, all done by OS/2 through the (16-bit!) drivers taken unchanged 
from the P390. This was used for OS/2's own purposes (C drive, etc.) and it was 
possible to map emulated 390 DASD to OS/2 files on this space, exactly as on 
P390. But the "real" DASD I/O was via an STI cable from the G5 CPU to a PCI 
card on the passive backplane. The array of SSA drives connected to the same 
PCI bus, and that I/O was done with no involvement of OS/2 or even the Intel 
CPU.

> No real channels except ESCON.

There was a parallel channel, but IIRC not supported for DASD. Tape and UR 
only. But did you really have old DASD that you wanted to connect via Bus & 
Tag? Maybe a 3380...

> No sysplex capability. A lot of SPOFs.

Yes - SPOF were a problem for a production shop. Though OS/2 could crash and be 
rebooted without crashing the G5. But who wants Sysplex on a machine that size, 
except a development shop (ISV)?

> z800 and followers were not much more expensive, but it's functionality was 
> significantly better.

z800 + DASD + network interface + TN3270/console support of some kind came out 
to a lot more money. But of course speed of a 64-bit program on the MP3000 = 0 
MIPS...

Tony H.

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


The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format.  Thank you.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Phil Smith]

Tony Harminc wrote, re  MP3000:
>It was *much* better than the MP2000. Very much faster. It was a 390
>G5 CPU. Even 2 x G5 on the top model (H50).

>A note on the "development only" idea about this machine. There *were*
>development (PWD) models. We had one, at a much reduced price, and we
>also had a free "Linux option" that kept the model number unchanged
>(P30), but doubled the CPU speed and doubled the memory. IIRC the
>non-PWD models were H30 and H50.

Yes! We had that at Linuxcare. We had the extra CPU, full memory, and something 
else was enabled that wasn't normally allowed. We had four LPARs; was it that 
normally you were only allowed two?

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[PINION, RICHARD W.]

I worked on a production 7060 (MP3000) H30 for several years.  We did not use 
the internal 
DASD.  The H30 was connected, via ESCON, to a 2105.  The only thing emulated on 
that box was
the OSA, which used the Ethernet card(s) on the PC.  Was it better than a z800 
or z900, definitely
not!  But that was all the organization could afford at that time.  It served 
us for almost eight
years.  We ran a production and test CICS region, TSO/ISPF, and batch.   

Heck, when we converted to z/OS 1.4 from OS/390 2.10, I actually created a 
Integrated Coupling
Facility LPAR, and SYSPLEX'ed the production OS/390 2.10 LPAR to a test z/OS 
1.4 LPAR for testing
purposes.  

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

On 13 December 2016 at 10:34, R.S. <r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl> wrote:

> I dare to disagree.

My turn...

> Although MP3000 was better than MP2000, it was still nothing good.

It was *much* better than the MP2000. Very much faster. It was a 390
G5 CPU. Even 2 x G5 on the top model (H50).

A note on the "development only" idea about this machine. There *were* 
development (PWD) models. We had one, at a much reduced price, and we also had 
a free "Linux option" that kept the model number unchanged (P30), but doubled 
the CPU speed and doubled the memory. IIRC the non-PWD models were H30 and H50.

> As a demonstration/learning/portable machine it was much to big.

Sure. The old P390s were about the best for that. But you could always connect 
remotely.

> As a production or development machine the I/O was really poor.

Well... Don't mix the two kinds of I/O. There was the P390/Integrated Server 
style of I/O, all done by OS/2 through the (16-bit!) drivers taken unchanged 
from the P390. This was used for OS/2's own purposes (C drive, etc.) and it was 
possible to map emulated 390 DASD to OS/2 files on this space, exactly as on 
P390. But the "real" DASD I/O was via an STI cable from the G5 CPU to a PCI 
card on the passive backplane. The array of SSA drives connected to the same 
PCI bus, and that I/O was done with no involvement of OS/2 or even the Intel 
CPU.

> No real channels except ESCON.

There was a parallel channel, but IIRC not supported for DASD. Tape and UR 
only. But did you really have old DASD that you wanted to connect via Bus & 
Tag? Maybe a 3380...

> No sysplex capability. A lot of SPOFs.

Yes - SPOF were a problem for a production shop. Though OS/2 could crash and be 
rebooted without crashing the G5. But who wants Sysplex on a machine that size, 
except a development shop (ISV)?

> z800 and followers were not much more expensive, but it's functionality was 
> significantly better.

z800 + DASD + network interface + TN3270/console support of some kind came out 
to a lot more money. But of course speed of a 64-bit program on the MP3000 = 0 
MIPS...

Tony H.

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

Confidentiality notice: 
This e-mail message, including any attachments, may contain legally privileged 
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or 
the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended 
recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or 
copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this 
e-mail message from your computer.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Rick Troth]

It's been said, those who do not understand Unix are condemned to 
re-invent it ... poorly.
We could have a lively discussion about that on this list, but likely we 
all agree that those who don't understand mainframes are condemned to 
re-invent them (poorly).


I really don't know anything good or bad about LzLabs, but the article 
starts with that "mainframes are a pain, but we need them (or need what 
they do), and those with skillz are turning grey", and then suggests 
that companies can "define" some ethereal thing rather than interest and 
train people to roll-up their sleeves.


Yeah ... sounds like cloudy PSI.
What I don't get is how alternate "hardware" addresses the tech debt 
problem.


Those who do not understand [technology xyz], especially those who 
refuse to bother learning it, are condemned to re-invent it really 
really poorly.


-- R; <><


On 12/11/16 23:49, zMan wrote:

http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-promises-end-mainframe-migration-woes-with-software-defined-approach-3645686/
seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed any light
that I can see.

Consider statements like:
*Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses, mainframes are
costly to maintain and difficult to support, particularly due to the
imminent retirement of those with knowledge of a system’s inner workings.*

OK, we can debate this (and have), but then:
*Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is moved
from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it or anything
like that. We literally take the binary code that comes off the mainframe
environment,” Cresswell explained.*

How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z for a
dev platform?

Next graf says:
*“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs with
contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe container.”*
Um, right. So that
 L R3,540Get TCB address
statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or they're
going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS?

Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud?

I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But the lack
of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Tony Harminc]

On 13 December 2016 at 10:34, R.S.  wrote:

> I dare to disagree.

My turn...

> Although MP3000 was better than MP2000, it was still nothing good.

It was *much* better than the MP2000. Very much faster. It was a 390
G5 CPU. Even 2 x G5 on the top model (H50).

A note on the "development only" idea about this machine. There *were*
development (PWD) models. We had one, at a much reduced price, and we
also had a free "Linux option" that kept the model number unchanged
(P30), but doubled the CPU speed and doubled the memory. IIRC the
non-PWD models were H30 and H50.

> As a demonstration/learning/portable machine it was much to big.

Sure. The old P390s were about the best for that. But you could always
connect remotely.

> As a production or development machine the I/O was really poor.

Well... Don't mix the two kinds of I/O. There was the P390/Integrated
Server style of I/O, all done by OS/2 through the (16-bit!) drivers
taken unchanged from the P390. This was used for OS/2's own purposes
(C drive, etc.) and it was possible to map emulated 390 DASD to OS/2
files on this space, exactly as on P390. But the "real" DASD I/O was
via an STI cable from the G5 CPU to a PCI card on the passive
backplane. The array of SSA drives connected to the same PCI bus, and
that I/O was done with no involvement of OS/2 or even the Intel CPU.

> No real channels except ESCON.

There was a parallel channel, but IIRC not supported for DASD. Tape
and UR only. But did you really have old DASD that you wanted to
connect via Bus & Tag? Maybe a 3380...

> No sysplex capability. A lot of SPOFs.

Yes - SPOF were a problem for a production shop. Though OS/2 could
crash and be rebooted without crashing the G5. But who wants Sysplex
on a machine that size, except a development shop (ISV)?

> z800 and followers were not much more expensive, but it's functionality was 
> significantly better.

z800 + DASD + network interface + TN3270/console support of some kind
came out to a lot more money. But of course speed of a 64-bit program
on the MP3000 = 0 MIPS...

Tony H.

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[zMan]

"As a production or development machine the I/O was really poor."

Production, sure; we had one for dev, and while it wasn't an I/O screamer,
it was *dev*. So I'll have to disagree. Sure, a z800 would have been
better. So would a z900.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:34 AM, R.S. 
wrote:

> I dare to disagree.
> Although MP3000 was better than MP2000, it was still nothing good.
> As a demonstration/learning/portable machine it was much to big.
> As a production or development machine the I/O was really poor.
> No real channels except ESCON.
> No sysplex capability. A lot of SPOFs.
> z800 and followers were not much more expensive, but it's functionality
> was significantly better.
>
> --
> Radoslaw Skorupka
> Lodz, Poland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> W dniu 2016-12-13 o 16:27, zMan pisze:
>
>> Oops, yeah, sorry. For some reason I do that with Gmail threads a lot.
>> Dumb
>> on my part. Thanks.
>>
>> MP3000 was a nice machine. Too bad IBM killed the follow-on.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:12 AM, R.S. 
>> wrote:
>>
>> zMan,
>>>
>>> Please, re-read the message you responded to.
>>> Hint: Itschak asked the question, Radoslaw answered.
>>>
>>> Regarding zPDT - indeed, it is licensed to "non production" activities
>>> (*some* development tasks, learning).
>>> The difference is zPDT is a license - you buy the hardware, IBM delivers
>>> you USB key, emulator and right to use ADCD system.
>>> For MP3000 it was (past tense justified) just a small mainframe and one
>>> had to obtain the liceneses separately, as for any other mainframe
>>> machine.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> --
>>> Radoslaw Skorupka
>>> Lodz, Poland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> ---
> Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku
> przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być
> jedynie jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś
> adresatem niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej
> przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie,
> rozprowadzanie lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie
> zabronione i może być karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo,
> prosimy niezwłocznie zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale
> usunąć tę wiadomość włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub
> zapisane na dysku.
>
> This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is
> intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be
> received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If
> you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee
> authorized to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any
> dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is
> legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by
> mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in
> your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any
> copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive.
>
> 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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP:
> 526-021-50-88. Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku
> S.A. (w całości wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[R.S.]

I dare to disagree.
Although MP3000 was better than MP2000, it was still nothing good.
As a demonstration/learning/portable machine it was much to big.
As a production or development machine the I/O was really poor.
No real channels except ESCON.
No sysplex capability. A lot of SPOFs.
z800 and followers were not much more expensive, but it's functionality 
was significantly better.


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland








W dniu 2016-12-13 o 16:27, zMan pisze:

Oops, yeah, sorry. For some reason I do that with Gmail threads a lot. Dumb
on my part. Thanks.

MP3000 was a nice machine. Too bad IBM killed the follow-on.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:12 AM, R.S. 
wrote:


zMan,

Please, re-read the message you responded to.
Hint: Itschak asked the question, Radoslaw answered.

Regarding zPDT - indeed, it is licensed to "non production" activities
(*some* development tasks, learning).
The difference is zPDT is a license - you buy the hardware, IBM delivers
you USB key, emulator and right to use ADCD system.
For MP3000 it was (past tense justified) just a small mainframe and one
had to obtain the liceneses separately, as for any other mainframe machine.

Regards
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland










---
Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku 
przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie 
jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem 
niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania 
adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie 
lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być 
karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie 
zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość 
włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku.

This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is 
intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be 
received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you 
are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to 
forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, 
distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be 
punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender 
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete 
permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to 
hard drive.

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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. 
Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości 
wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Dana Mitchell]

In the 2000-2001 timeframe we were indeed pitched MP3000 as a replacement CPU 
for a production workload.  As I understood it at the time, the z 
infrastructure and internal DASD ran under, and was dependent upon an OS/2 
hypervisor.  

Dana

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:53:14 +0100, R.S.  wrote:
> W dniu 2016-12-13 o 11:52, Itschak Mugzach pisze:
> Isn't mp3000 licensed to development only?
No.
However I would use past simple tense. ;-)

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[zMan]

Oops, yeah, sorry. For some reason I do that with Gmail threads a lot. Dumb
on my part. Thanks.

MP3000 was a nice machine. Too bad IBM killed the follow-on.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:12 AM, R.S. 
wrote:

> zMan,
>
> Please, re-read the message you responded to.
> Hint: Itschak asked the question, Radoslaw answered.
>
> Regarding zPDT - indeed, it is licensed to "non production" activities
> (*some* development tasks, learning).
> The difference is zPDT is a license - you buy the hardware, IBM delivers
> you USB key, emulator and right to use ADCD system.
> For MP3000 it was (past tense justified) just a small mainframe and one
> had to obtain the liceneses separately, as for any other mainframe machine.
>
> Regards
> --
> Radoslaw Skorupka
> Lodz, Poland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> W dniu 2016-12-13 o 15:44, zMan pisze:
>
> As others have noted, No, it wasn't. I suspect you're confusing MP3000 and
>> zPDT.
>>
>> 2016-12-13 6:53 GMT-05:00 R.S. :
>>
>> W dniu 2016-12-13 o 11:52, Itschak Mugzach pisze:
>>>
>>> Isn't mp3000 licensed to development only?

 No.
>>> However I would use past simple tense. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Radoslaw Skorupka
>>> Lodz, Poland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---
> Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku
> przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być
> jedynie jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś
> adresatem niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej
> przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie,
> rozprowadzanie lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie
> zabronione i może być karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo,
> prosimy niezwłocznie zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale
> usunąć tę wiadomość włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub
> zapisane na dysku.
>
> This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is
> intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be
> received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If
> you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee
> authorized to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any
> dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is
> legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by
> mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in
> your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any
> copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive.
>
> 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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP:
> 526-021-50-88. Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku
> S.A. (w całości wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[R.S.]

zMan,

Please, re-read the message you responded to.
Hint: Itschak asked the question, Radoslaw answered.

Regarding zPDT - indeed, it is licensed to "non production" activities 
(*some* development tasks, learning).
The difference is zPDT is a license - you buy the hardware, IBM delivers 
you USB key, emulator and right to use ADCD system.
For MP3000 it was (past tense justified) just a small mainframe and one 
had to obtain the liceneses separately, as for any other mainframe machine.


Regards
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland







W dniu 2016-12-13 o 15:44, zMan pisze:

As others have noted, No, it wasn't. I suspect you're confusing MP3000 and
zPDT.

2016-12-13 6:53 GMT-05:00 R.S. :


W dniu 2016-12-13 o 11:52, Itschak Mugzach pisze:


Isn't mp3000 licensed to development only?


No.
However I would use past simple tense. ;-)


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland







---
Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku 
przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie 
jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem 
niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania 
adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie 
lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być 
karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie 
zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość 
włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku.

This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is 
intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be 
received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you 
are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to 
forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, 
distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be 
punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender 
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete 
permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to 
hard drive.

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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. 
Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości 
wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[zMan]

As others have noted, No, it wasn't. I suspect you're confusing MP3000 and
zPDT.

2016-12-13 6:53 GMT-05:00 R.S. :

> W dniu 2016-12-13 o 11:52, Itschak Mugzach pisze:
>
>> Isn't mp3000 licensed to development only?
>>
> No.
> However I would use past simple tense. ;-)
>
>
> --
> Radoslaw Skorupka
> Lodz, Poland
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku
> przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być
> jedynie jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś
> adresatem niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej
> przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie,
> rozprowadzanie lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie
> zabronione i może być karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo,
> prosimy niezwłocznie zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale
> usunąć tę wiadomość włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub
> zapisane na dysku.
>
> This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is
> intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be
> received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If
> you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee
> authorized to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any
> dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is
> legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by
> mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in
> your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any
> copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive.
>
> 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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP:
> 526-021-50-88. Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku
> S.A. (w całości wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.
>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[R.S.]

W dniu 2016-12-13 o 11:52, Itschak Mugzach pisze:

Isn't mp3000 licensed to development only?

No.
However I would use past simple tense. ;-)

--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland






---
Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku 
przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie 
jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem 
niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania 
adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie 
lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być 
karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie 
zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość 
włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku.

This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is 
intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be 
received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you 
are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to 
forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, 
distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be 
punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender 
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete 
permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to 
hard drive.

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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. 
Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości 
wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Parwez Hamid]

The MP3000 came with integrated disk and was not restricted to dev only. A lot 
of 'small' customers used it for production work. Having said this it was ideal 
for dev. End of Service for the system was in 2012.

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Itschak Mugzach]

Isn't mp3000 licensed to development only?

ITschak

בתאריך 13 בדצמ 2016 12:50,‏ "R.S."  כתב:

> W dniu 2016-12-13 o 11:05, Dave Wade pisze:
>
>> [...]
>> There are many sites out there that have been deserted by IBM who only
>> want to sell "Big Iron". There is nothing like the MP3000 for
>> price/performance available today, yet many were sold. What options are
>> there for users of small mainframes?
>>
>> I can't see IBM prices but the lowest price box appears to be around
>> $75,000. When we bought our MP3000 (used) it was less than half that price,
>> and that included the DASD. I recon that if you are adding DASD then you
>> are looking at $100k -> $150K
>>
> Yes and no.
> You can buy second-hand machine (with support if you want) for "close to
> peanut" price.
> How much it depends, but I would bet you can have CPC+DASD for less than
> $10,000. Or even less if you decide to buy older generation.
>
> --
> Radoslaw Skorupka
> Lodz, Poland
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku
> przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być
> jedynie jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś
> adresatem niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej
> przekazania adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie,
> rozprowadzanie lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie
> zabronione i może być karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo,
> prosimy niezwłocznie zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale
> usunąć tę wiadomość włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub
> zapisane na dysku.
>
> This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is
> intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be
> received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If
> you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee
> authorized to forward it to the addressee, be advised that any
> dissemination, copying, distribution or any other similar activity is
> legally prohibited and may be punishable. If you received this e-mail by
> mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in
> your e-mail software and delete permanently this e-mail including any
> copies of it either printed or saved to hard drive.
>
> 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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP:
> 526-021-50-88. Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku
> S.A. (w całości wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.
>
>
> --
> 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: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[R.S.]

W dniu 2016-12-13 o 11:05, Dave Wade pisze:

[...]
There are many sites out there that have been deserted by IBM who only want to sell 
"Big Iron". There is nothing like the MP3000 for price/performance available 
today, yet many were sold. What options are there for users of small mainframes?

I can't see IBM prices but the lowest price box appears to be around $75,000. When 
we bought our MP3000 (used) it was less than half that price, and that included 
the DASD. I recon that if you are adding DASD then you are looking at $100k -> 
$150K

Yes and no.
You can buy second-hand machine (with support if you want) for "close to 
peanut" price.
How much it depends, but I would bet you can have CPC+DASD for less than 
$10,000. Or even less if you decide to buy older generation.


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland






---
Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku 
przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie 
jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem 
niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania 
adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie 
lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być 
karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie 
zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość 
włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku.

This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is 
intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be 
received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you 
are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to 
forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, 
distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be 
punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender 
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete 
permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to 
hard drive.

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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. 
Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości 
wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Dave Wade]

>The legacy, legacy, legacy everywhere on their site is pure indoctrination, 
>sorry, psychologically-inspired advertising, easily
>impressed on the brain-pans of those with no genuine knowledge of Mainframes 
>who are already "modified" to believe that a
 >Mainframe is a dusty-old-thing running systems written in the 1960s.

There are many sites out there that have been deserted by IBM who only want to 
sell "Big Iron". There is nothing like the MP3000 for price/performance 
available today, yet many were sold. What options are there for users of small 
mainframes? 

I can't see IBM prices but the lowest price box appears to be around $75,000. 
When we bought our MP3000 (used) it was less than half that price, and that 
included the DASD. I recon that if you are adding DASD then you are looking at 
$100k -> $150K

I am pretty sure there are still sites out there who are running legacy 
hardware with no where to go, who would like to stick with VM & DOS (perhaps 
even pre-Z versions).

Any way if you want to and heckle I am sure you would be welcome at their forth 
coming "Mainframe Summit"

https://www.lzlabs.com/software-defined-mainframe-summit/

but I guess like me, you can feel the marking oozing out...

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Bill Woodger]

According to the marketing literature, it does binary.

Both Raincode and IT-COBOL are partners. If a binary doesn't work, you go to a 
COBOL-IT recompile.

They have a demo-film for batch, with this stern and impressive prologue: "The 
recording has not been edited or shortened. Everything you will see happened in 
real time".

What is the length of the bit which would potentially "benefit" from editing if 
they were being dodgy? Four seconds. Yep, they've not edited-down four seconds 
to make it look faster than four seconds actually is.

During those four seconds the I7 CPU hits 25% utilisation. Mmm... must be a 
hard-hitting JOB? Memory use prior to running anything is 32% of 16GB, and 
stays solidly at 32% throughout. Can't be that tough a task.

They run a "NIST JOB", saying that it is "a bit special". For he JOB "which 
contains the references to the modules that have been created by the National 
Institutes of Standards and Technology. They have created a program-set which 
verifies the integrity and functionality of the COBOL language in the 
environment" they "took these programs that have been compiled on the 
mainframe, binary intact, and its data, and ported it onto the software-defined 
mainframe". The JOB is stated to have 260 steps.

OK, so NIST certainly have done that. They have over 500 programs in the test 
suite. They contain up to 70 CALL statements, so 260 plus 70 (being 
conservative) means that they could be covering 330 out of more than 500 
programs in the NIST test suite. The NIST programs do nothing beyond verifying 
the correct processing of PROCEDURE DIVISION constructs. I'm not aware of 
anything very heavy in them, but I'm not claiming to know the 500+ programs in 
detail, there may be a couple with PERFORM or SEARCH, I'll try to check later.

So "ported". What does that involve? What about "the COBOL run-time" (LE), 
which I assume is licensed. What about things like SORT and MERGE, which on the 
Mainframe use the installed SORT package?

"Running standardized mainframe application (NIST job) with unchanged mainframe 
load modules and JCL" and "by the way, 260 steps is more than the conventional 
mainframe can run in one job", so they can have-their-cake-and-eat-it within a 
very short period of time in the same film-clip.

The legacy, legacy, legacy everywhere on their site is pure indoctrination, 
sorry, psychologically-inspired advertising, easily impressed on the brain-pans 
of those with no genuine knowledge of Mainframes who are already "modified" to 
believe that a Mainframe is a dusty-old-thing running systems written in the 
1960s.

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Ed Jaffe]

On 12/12/2016 8:17 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:


Indeed. Though ISTR that one of John Moores' previous efforts was a
multi-platform security system, so I'd be willing to bet that they do
understand the issue pretty well.


Wasn't that Barry Schraeger's BOLT?

AFAIK, Barry is not involved in this effort at LzLabs.

--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Phil Smith III]

R.S. wrote, in part:

>I'm rather curious about RACF (security? who needs security?), CICS, IMS,
etc.

 

Indeed. Though ISTR that one of John Moores' previous efforts was a
multi-platform security system, so I'd be willing to bet that they do
understand the issue pretty well.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Charles Mills]

Somehow if I were IBM I would not be quaking in my boots.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of R.S.
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

The solution is a little bit simpler: they don't support binary code.
They can recompile some source code using Raincode compilers, but even the 
source code need to be "simplfied" (read: some constructs are not understood).

How does it work? As about references. And *check them*, otherwise you'll get 
as accurate and valuable knowledge as Computerworld article.

;-)

Regarding DB2: it's the easiest part to replace: it can be any relational 
database, including DB2 LUW.
I'm rather curious about RACF (security? who needs security?), CICS, IMS, etc.

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[R.S.]

The solution is a little bit simpler: they don't support binary code.
They can recompile some source code using Raincode compilers, but even 
the source code need to be "simplfied" (read: some constructs are not 
understood).


How does it work? As about references. And *check them*, otherwise 
you'll get as accurate and valuable knowledge as Computerworld article.


;-)

Regarding DB2: it's the easiest part to replace: it can be any 
relational database, including DB2 LUW.
I'm rather curious about RACF (security? who needs security?), CICS, 
IMS, etc.


--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland






---
Treść tej wiadomości może zawierać informacje prawnie chronione Banku 
przeznaczone wyłącznie do użytku służbowego adresata. Odbiorcą może być jedynie 
jej adresat z wyłączeniem dostępu osób trzecich. Jeżeli nie jesteś adresatem 
niniejszej wiadomości lub pracownikiem upoważnionym do jej przekazania 
adresatowi, informujemy, że jej rozpowszechnianie, kopiowanie, rozprowadzanie 
lub inne działanie o podobnym charakterze jest prawnie zabronione i może być 
karalne. Jeżeli otrzymałeś tę wiadomość omyłkowo, prosimy niezwłocznie 
zawiadomić nadawcę wysyłając odpowiedź oraz trwale usunąć tę wiadomość 
włączając w to wszelkie jej kopie wydrukowane lub zapisane na dysku.

This e-mail may contain legally privileged information of the Bank and is 
intended solely for business use of the addressee. This e-mail may only be 
received by the addressee and may not be disclosed to any third parties. If you 
are not the intended addressee of this e-mail or the employee authorized to 
forward it to the addressee, be advised that any dissemination, copying, 
distribution or any other similar activity is legally prohibited and may be 
punishable. If you received this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender 
immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software and delete 
permanently this e-mail including any copies of it either printed or saved to 
hard drive.

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, nr rejestru przedsiębiorców KRS 025237, NIP: 526-021-50-88. 
Według stanu na dzień 01.01.2016 r. kapitał zakładowy mBanku S.A. (w całości 
wpłacony) wynosi 168.955.696 złotych.


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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Ed Jaffe]

On 12/12/2016 11:50 AM, Charles Mills wrote:

Along those lines, would such a product have to/be able to "emulate" DB2? Easy 
to come halfway close (MySQL) -- damned difficult to do it all. Just ask Oracle.


Doesn't DB2 UDB run on non-z platforms? If so, you might be able to 
intercept the z/OS DB2 calls and redirect them to non-z version you've 
installed.


Although most-likely technically feasible given enough time and customer 
mind share, it seems to me that the real difficulty for LzLabs will be a 
business model based on antiquated metrics in an ever-changing landscape.


Today's z/OS-based mainframe is doing things unimagined just a few years 
ago such as web-based software management, MWaaS cloud-based middleware 
provisioning, arguably the best Java implementation in the industry, 
substantial and ever increasing participation in the API Economy, etc. 
with new innovations appearing more quickly than ever thanks to 
Agile/DevOps/continuous delivery development models. (It's precisely 
these innovations that enabled Rocket Software's Apache Spark 
implementation to be developed and made available to z/OS customers in 
near record time.)


It's no longer clear that moving off the mainframe can be fully 
rationalized as the "smart" choice for most z/OS customers. Indeed, many 
are moving work in the opposite direction with great success and saving 
heaps of money in the process. One excellent example is the "z/OS and 
DevOps" story Walmart told in their Tuesday morning keynote presentation 
at SHARE in Atlanta...


--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Jerry Whitteridge]

No - just understand the differences in application structures and assumptions 
on the environment.

Jerry Whitteridge
Manager Mainframe Systems & Storage
Albertsons - Safeway Inc.
623 869 5523
Corporate Tieline - 85523

If you feel in control
you just aren't going fast enough.



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 12:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

Along those lines, would such a product have to/be able to "emulate" DB2? Easy 
to come halfway close (MySQL) -- damned difficult to do it all. Just ask Oracle.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jerry Whitteridge
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

The problems occur not in the move of the programs and their execution, but in 
the logic of the application design which nearly always makes assumptions about 
the environment the application was designed around. Moving the application 
code without the underlying infrastructure that it relies on is what kill the 
functionality of the application on the new platform. (I'm talking about things 
like application security, multiple userids used for different functions, 
database access security, utilities, enqueues to prevent concurrent access etc. 
etc. etc.)



Jerry Whitteridge
Manager Mainframe Systems & Storage
Albertsons - Safeway Inc.
623 869 5523
Corporate Tieline - 85523

If you feel in control
you just aren't going fast enough.



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of zMan
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

Um, OK...so it's going to work for the subset of programs that happen to use 
the calls that they've implemented? This reminds me of early Windows, when it 
was a shell over DOS: everything was fine until it wasn't, when you'd try 
something that hadn't been handled yet, and fall off the edge of the earth.

Seems like it's going to take a ton of testing to be sure your application is 
going to run safely?!

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sounds like z/390.  Keep the hardware instructions, rewrite the z/OS calls.
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM, zMan <zedgarhoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-
> promises-end-mainframe-migration-woes-with-software-
> defined-approach-3645686/
> > seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed
> > any
> light
> > that I can see.
> >
> > Consider statements like:
> > *Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses,
> > mainframes
> are
> > costly to maintain and difficult to support, particularly due to the
> > imminent retirement of those with knowledge of a system’s inner
> workings.*
> >
> > OK, we can debate this (and have), but then:
> > *Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is
> > moved from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it
> > or anything like that. We literally take the binary code that comes
> > off the mainframe environment,” Cresswell explained.*
> >
> > How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z
> > for a dev platform?
> >
> > Next graf says:
> > *“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs
> > with contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe
> container.”*
> > Um, right. So that
> > L R3,540Get TCB address
> > statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or
> they're
> > going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS?
> >
> > Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud?
> >
> > I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But
> > the
> lack
> > of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux.
> > --
> > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
> >
> > 
> > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
> > IBM-MAIN
>
>
>
> --
> Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
> Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscrib

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Tom Marchant]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:50:04 -0800, Charles Mills wrote:

>would such a product have to/be able to "emulate" DB2?

May not have to emulate it. DB2 is available on other platforms.

-- 
Tom Marchant

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Charles Mills]

Along those lines, would such a product have to/be able to "emulate" DB2? Easy 
to come halfway close (MySQL) -- damned difficult to do it all. Just ask Oracle.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Jerry Whitteridge
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

The problems occur not in the move of the programs and their execution, but in 
the logic of the application design which nearly always makes assumptions about 
the environment the application was designed around. Moving the application 
code without the underlying infrastructure that it relies on is what kill the 
functionality of the application on the new platform. (I'm talking about things 
like application security, multiple userids used for different functions, 
database access security, utilities, enqueues to prevent concurrent access etc. 
etc. etc.)



Jerry Whitteridge
Manager Mainframe Systems & Storage
Albertsons - Safeway Inc.
623 869 5523
Corporate Tieline - 85523

If you feel in control
you just aren't going fast enough.



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of zMan
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

Um, OK...so it's going to work for the subset of programs that happen to use 
the calls that they've implemented? This reminds me of early Windows, when it 
was a shell over DOS: everything was fine until it wasn't, when you'd try 
something that hadn't been handled yet, and fall off the edge of the earth.

Seems like it's going to take a ton of testing to be sure your application is 
going to run safely?!

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sounds like z/390.  Keep the hardware instructions, rewrite the z/OS calls.
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM, zMan <zedgarhoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-
> promises-end-mainframe-migration-woes-with-software-
> defined-approach-3645686/
> > seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed 
> > any
> light
> > that I can see.
> >
> > Consider statements like:
> > *Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses, 
> > mainframes
> are
> > costly to maintain and difficult to support, particularly due to the 
> > imminent retirement of those with knowledge of a system’s inner
> workings.*
> >
> > OK, we can debate this (and have), but then:
> > *Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is 
> > moved from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it 
> > or anything like that. We literally take the binary code that comes 
> > off the mainframe environment,” Cresswell explained.*
> >
> > How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z 
> > for a dev platform?
> >
> > Next graf says:
> > *“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs 
> > with contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe
> container.”*
> > Um, right. So that
> > L R3,540Get TCB address
> > statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or
> they're
> > going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS?
> >
> > Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud?
> >
> > I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But 
> > the
> lack
> > of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux.
> > --
> > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
> >
> > 
> > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, 
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO 
> > IBM-MAIN
>
>
>
> --
> Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
> Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send 
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



--
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

 Warning: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the corporate 
e-mail system

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Jesse 1 Robinson]

Circa 1980 IBM delivered a new version of MVS that issued some instructions 
that the Amdahl model we (TRW Credit Data) ran on could not handle. Amdahl 
countered with some OS modifications that trapped every S0C1, examined it, 
and--if appropriate--simulated the action or NOOPed it. They also replaced the 
offending instruction with either a NOOP or a branch directly to the simulation 
routine. As the system ran, it became more efficient as S0C1 abends diminished 
in number.

There are ways for clever folks to make things work against formidable odds. 

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
robin...@sce.com

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of Mike Schwab
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

Sounds like z/390.  Keep the hardware instructions, rewrite the z/OS calls.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM, zMan <zedgarhoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-promises-end-main
> frame-migration-woes-with-software-defined-approach-3645686/
> seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed any 
> light that I can see.
>
> Consider statements like:
> *Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses, 
> mainframes are costly to maintain and difficult to support, 
> particularly due to the imminent retirement of those with knowledge of 
> a system’s inner workings.*
>
> OK, we can debate this (and have), but then:
> *Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is 
> moved from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it or 
> anything like that. We literally take the binary code that comes off 
> the mainframe environment,” Cresswell explained.*
>
> How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z 
> for a dev platform?
>
> Next graf says:
> *“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs 
> with contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe 
> container.”* Um, right. So that
> L R3,540Get TCB address
> statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or 
> they're going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS?
>
> Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud?
>
> I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But the 
> lack of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux.
> --
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
>
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Charles Mills]

The only thing easier about the Windows API relative to the z/OS "API" is that 
it is implemented almost entirely as library calls. There is little in Windows 
that is equivalent to the control block chasing that is a common and often 
necessary programming technique on z/OS.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of John McKown
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:

> I agree, but it must be an adequately solvable sort of problem if Wine 
> can do it for the Windows API (adequately).
>
> Charles
>
>
​You just beat me to that (immediate _after_ I clicked SEND). But I'd consider 
WINE more like CA's DUO which ran DOS programs under MVS without recompilation. 
DUO intercepted the DOS service requests and emulated them or vectored them to 
the MVS service (a translation stub kind of). Of course, IMO, the DOS API is 
far simpler than Windows. Not a lot of "crap"
like MS.​

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Jerry Whitteridge]

The problems occur not in the move of the programs and their execution, but in 
the logic of the application design which nearly always makes assumptions about 
the environment the application was designed around. Moving the application 
code without the underlying infrastructure that it relies on is what kill the 
functionality of the application on the new platform. (I'm talking about things 
like application security, multiple userids used for different functions, 
database access security, utilities, enqueues to prevent concurrent access etc. 
etc. etc.)



Jerry Whitteridge
Manager Mainframe Systems & Storage
Albertsons - Safeway Inc.
623 869 5523
Corporate Tieline - 85523

If you feel in control
you just aren't going fast enough.



-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of zMan
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

Um, OK...so it's going to work for the subset of programs that happen to use 
the calls that they've implemented? This reminds me of early Windows, when it 
was a shell over DOS: everything was fine until it wasn't, when you'd try 
something that hadn't been handled yet, and fall off the edge of the earth.

Seems like it's going to take a ton of testing to be sure your application is 
going to run safely?!

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Mike Schwab <mike.a.sch...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sounds like z/390.  Keep the hardware instructions, rewrite the z/OS calls.
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM, zMan <zedgarhoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-
> promises-end-mainframe-migration-woes-with-software-
> defined-approach-3645686/
> > seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed
> > any
> light
> > that I can see.
> >
> > Consider statements like:
> > *Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses,
> > mainframes
> are
> > costly to maintain and difficult to support, particularly due to the
> > imminent retirement of those with knowledge of a system’s inner
> workings.*
> >
> > OK, we can debate this (and have), but then:
> > *Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is
> > moved from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it
> > or anything like that. We literally take the binary code that comes
> > off the mainframe environment,” Cresswell explained.*
> >
> > How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z
> > for a dev platform?
> >
> > Next graf says:
> > *“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs
> > with contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe
> container.”*
> > Um, right. So that
> > L R3,540Get TCB address
> > statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or
> they're
> > going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS?
> >
> > Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud?
> >
> > I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But
> > the
> lack
> > of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux.
> > --
> > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
> >
> > 
> > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO
> > IBM-MAIN
>
>
>
> --
> Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
> Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send
> email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



--
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

 Warning: All e-mail sent to this address will be received by the corporate 
e-mail system, and is subject to archival and review by someone other than the 
recipient. This e-mail may contain proprietary information and is intended only 
for the use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient(s), you are notified that you have received this message 
in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, 
please notify the sender immediately.


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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[John McKown]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Charles Mills  wrote:

> I agree, but it must be an adequately solvable sort of problem if Wine can
> do it for the Windows API (adequately).
>
> Charles
>
>
​You just beat me to that (immediate _after_ I clicked SEND). But I'd
consider WINE more like CA's DUO which ran DOS programs under MVS without
recompilation. DUO intercepted the DOS service requests and emulated them
or vectored them to the MVS service (a translation stub kind of). Of
course, IMO, the DOS API is far simpler than Windows. Not a lot of "crap"
like MS.​


-- 
Heisenberg may have been here.

http://xkcd.com/1770/

Maranatha! <><
John McKown

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Charles Mills]

I agree, but it must be an adequately solvable sort of problem if Wine can do 
it for the Windows API (adequately).

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf 
Of zMan
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:46 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

Um, OK...so it's going to work for the subset of programs that happen to use 
the calls that they've implemented? This reminds me of early Windows, when it 
was a shell over DOS: everything was fine until it wasn't, when you'd try 
something that hadn't been handled yet, and fall off the edge of the earth.

Seems like it's going to take a ton of testing to be sure your application is 
going to run safely?!

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[zMan]

Um, OK...so it's going to work for the subset of programs that happen to
use the calls that they've implemented? This reminds me of early Windows,
when it was a shell over DOS: everything was fine until it wasn't, when
you'd try something that hadn't been handled yet, and fall off the edge of
the earth.

Seems like it's going to take a ton of testing to be sure your application
is going to run safely?!

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Mike Schwab 
wrote:

> Sounds like z/390.  Keep the hardware instructions, rewrite the z/OS calls.
>
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM, zMan  wrote:
> > http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-
> promises-end-mainframe-migration-woes-with-software-
> defined-approach-3645686/
> > seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed any
> light
> > that I can see.
> >
> > Consider statements like:
> > *Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses, mainframes
> are
> > costly to maintain and difficult to support, particularly due to the
> > imminent retirement of those with knowledge of a system’s inner
> workings.*
> >
> > OK, we can debate this (and have), but then:
> > *Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is moved
> > from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it or anything
> > like that. We literally take the binary code that comes off the mainframe
> > environment,” Cresswell explained.*
> >
> > How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z for a
> > dev platform?
> >
> > Next graf says:
> > *“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs with
> > contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe
> container.”*
> > Um, right. So that
> > L R3,540Get TCB address
> > statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or
> they're
> > going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS?
> >
> > Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud?
> >
> > I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But the
> lack
> > of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux.
> > --
> > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
> >
> > --
> > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
>
>
> --
> Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
> Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>



-- 
zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

[Mike Schwab]

Sounds like z/390.  Keep the hardware instructions, rewrite the z/OS calls.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:49 PM, zMan  wrote:
> http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-promises-end-mainframe-migration-woes-with-software-defined-approach-3645686/
> seems enthralled with LzLabs, but the article doesn't really shed any light
> that I can see.
>
> Consider statements like:
> *Yet, while considered robust and reliable for certain uses, mainframes are
> costly to maintain and difficult to support, particularly due to the
> imminent retirement of those with knowledge of a system’s inner workings.*
>
> OK, we can debate this (and have), but then:
> *Cresswell described the migration process: “When an application is moved
> from the mainframe into our environment we don't recompile it or anything
> like that. We literally take the binary code that comes off the mainframe
> environment,” Cresswell explained.*
>
> How does this help with the maintenance issue? Do you keep a real z for a
> dev platform?
>
> Next graf says:
> *“At the time we put it into the container we replace all the APIs with
> contemporary ones that reference our software defined mainframe container.”*
> Um, right. So that
> L R3,540Get TCB address
> statement is going to get replaced? Or just replicated/emulated? Or they're
> going to emulate all of the data structures in z/OS?
>
> Or is this all a shell game, and it's really just Herc in the cloud?
>
> I'm not opposed to someone doing something to shake things up. But the lack
> of detail from Lz is starting to smell like PSI redux.
> --
> zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN



-- 
Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA
Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all?

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