Shmuel Metz writes:
It was dereliction of duty to not report prices on, e.g., the P390,
MP2000, MP3000.
Duty? I'm just a guy with ibm.com in my e-mail address. Nothing in my job
description requires me to hang out here. It's just for fun. And I
definitely speak my own personal opinions.
I
If you're curious, there's also an option switch when you start the JVM
that determines whether the JVM will or will not dispatch to zAAP. The
default is to use the zAAP if it's found, thence according to whatever
crossover policy you have set. This switch is per-JVM, so on the same
system you
Thank you everyone who replied to my question. Your input was very
interesting and helpful.
Maciek Ksiezycki
PKO, Poland
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
PDSE code is newer and probably less costly and lower risk for IBM to insert
new function into.
I wouldn't think so.
PDSE is so buggy right now.
I wouldn't want anybody adding new function into it until the old function is
fixed.
I do have a question, though:
Why do YOU
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:38:41 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote:
I haven't found P390 (System/390 Integrated Server) prices, so somebody
will have to help us on that. The P390 had some shortcomings even as a
software development platform, though. I wish it had more memory
expansion, in particular,
At 4/6/2007 02:38 AM, TSipples wrote:
Shmuel Metz writes:
It was dereliction of duty to not report prices on, e.g., the P390,
MP2000, MP3000.
Duty? I'm just a guy with ibm.com in my e-mail address. Nothing in my job
description requires me to hang out here. It's just for fun. And I
Tom Marchant wrote:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:38:41 +0900, Timothy Sipples wrote:
I haven't found P390 (System/390 Integrated Server) prices, so somebody
will have to help us on that. The P390 had some shortcomings even as a
software development platform, though. I wish it had more memory
Software revenues will still be 100% IBM's and are likely to increase due to
more market penetration. On the hardware side IBM would still be selling its
own hardware plus there could be royalty stream from PCM vendors for IBM
patents. BTW this is nothing new, it was the norm ten years ago.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:38:28 -0600, Anne Lynn Wheeler wrote:
part of the reason that Amdahl was able to (initially) move into the
highend (in the mid to late 70s) was that the company had taken a
side-trip into Future System project (which was going to replace all
370s ... and be as radically
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Cole
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 7:56 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)
SNIP
Our problem is, the FLEX-ES system was
John
You might like to mention to your colleague that there are excellent search
engines available for sorting out this sort of query.
For example, I entered hipersockets into the Google box kindly integrated
into Enterprise Explorer by the outfit who built my PC and I received 44,500
hits.
Bob Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part:
1. Amdahl and TIDA is AFH.
AFH? Another ing Hamster?
3. FLEX-ES is alleged to have violated its agreement with IBM. No one
will ever know what action IBM would have taken had FLEX-ES not
partnered with PSI.
I've heard no such allegation of a
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:03:11 -0600, David Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Go back and look at your pops manuals for the last 10 years or so. Note the
new instructions from one release to another. Those instructions were added
to facilitate functionality that was incorporated into one or more
Gee, a PC Weenie who understands. A mild rant about how one person,
likely through ignorance, totally missed an efficient way to code a
substring search. This helps explain why computers today need to have so
much horse power.
http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/04/06/c_objective-c/
Miran
What's the problem? Just do it!
HiperSockets provides a regular interface defined with DEVICE, LINK and HOME
statements and started with a START statement - as shown in an earlier
post. Such a regular interface is what Enterprise Extender requires.
Chris Mason
- Original Message
Timothy,
From the viewpoint of a developer who has worked at both large and
medium development shops, with access to machines as varied as the
IS2000, MP3000, 3090-z9 bc, I have to say that you are missing the
point of the cost comparison between the MP3000 and the z9 bc (which by
the way is a
On 6 Apr 2007 05:57:25 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Cole) wrote:
And Seymour's right, you then went on to totally miss the point that,
outside of the currently dying FLES-ES offerings, IBM's pricing
structure is simply not affordable to small businesses such as mine
and many others who are
Indeed. I couldn't figure out what FSI - PSI partnership Bob was
talking about, but certainly it was T3 Technologies. Not Fundamental
Software.
Phil Smith III wrote:
3. FLEX-ES is alleged to have violated its agreement with IBM. No one
will ever know what action IBM would have taken had
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 9:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the
sky is falling!!)
On 6 Apr 2007 05:57:25
Hi
Maybe exists a paper about this or we can make one:
How to work on the mainframe at 2010 or 2012.
I mean to summ up the different experiences about WebShere for z/OS ,
Internet, USS etc.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe /
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of McKown, John
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 9:19 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)
snip
Everything old is new again. Didn't
In a message dated 4/6/2007 8:13:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given today's prices against 1995 prices, an IBM built PWD machine like
this should be an attractive offering, particularly on a 3 year lease.
And that would include the CD/DVD system(s) being free to
Why do YOU want member-level security.
Just move the members to another (protected) library.
This is the IBM-advertised way. In many cases it is feasible, but it can be
unconvenient.
Inconvenient, yes.
But, so is lousy performance and introducing more bugs to an already buggy
product
You would possibly want to shut the use of zAAP off for development
environments, to prevent alpha-level code loops from using resources
better spent on production (I'd say money-making work but as you can see
I work for a government, people believe we don't make it we just spend it)
work.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:48:49 +, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do have a question, though:
Why do YOU want member-level security.
Just move the members to another (protected) library.
That can work in some very restrictive cases, Ted, but not all cases.
Consider, for example, using
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) writes:
Amdahl was successful in the high end market because it developed
processors using high speed Emitter-Coupled Logic. Dr.
On Apr 6, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szigetvari wrote:
Hi
Maybe exists a paper about this or we can make one:
How to work on the mainframe at 2010 or 2012.
I mean to summ up the different experiences about WebShere for z/
OS , Internet, USS etc.
Learn Windows, sigh.
Ed
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to work on the mainframe at 2010
On Apr 6, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szigetvari wrote:
Hi
Objective-C is so much different from base C. I could understand where a
programmer well versed in Obj-C, and without a good base in C, would do
this.
Let's not forget that editing and critiquing code is a lot easier than
creating.
I bought my first Mac last December. I love it. I love
On Apr 6, 2007, at 11:04 AM, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: How to work on the mainframe at 2010
On Apr 6, 2007, at
Couldn't resist.
Wonder what the COBOL or Assembler code would look like? And how efficient?
G, D, R
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 11:04:28 -0500, Todd Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Objective-C is so much different from base C. I could understand where a
programmer well versed in Obj-C, and without
Wayne Driscoll wrote:
While the z800 can work w/o a raised floor, it is desirable, or else you
have escon cables running across the floor. While you may not think
that $50K US is a large cost, when the cost of the DASD, the weight and
clearence requirements etc are factored in, the costs
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Marchant) writes:
Wrong.
IBM has always specified what hardware is required to run their software.
When IBM introduced MVS/SE, it
Another couldn't resist:
Setting the context: Around 1970 and - maybe - it's related to IBM pushing
PL/I.
A salesman calls and wants to know what is the overhead with Assembler.
Chris Mason
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Stitt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:14:59 -0700, Ray Mullins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, both you and Marcia continue to ignore the context of the
current
discussion here on IBM-MAIN in your posts. Many of us are or work
for ISVs
- especially small ones that can't afford the $100K for a basic
Alan Altmark wrote:
[snip it all]
Well put, Alan. Thanks for the perspectives.
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
The Trainer's Friend, Inc.
303-393-8716
http://www.trainersfriend.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 1:41 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)
SNIP
I love beer consumers. They drink my
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Thompson, Steve
SNIP
I love beer consumers. They drink my beer as fast as I can make it.
I love computer consumers. The eat my computers as fast as I
can make them.
I love compiler consumers. They eat my
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:41:21 -0500, Alan Altmark wrote:
But with all that said, I and many others sadly recognize that some
customers (the consumer kind) are leaving the mainframe. Their IT
needs are shrinking, not growing, and it has become painfully evident
to both sides that the time has come
I don't have a clue how many installations license MVS today
According to a Canadian IBM'r, there are approximately 6,000 mainframe licences
world-wide.
To put it in perspective, there are approximately 230,000 Oracle licences.
(Same source)
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
I heard that there are about 8000 CICS licenses which run on 85% of the
mainframes. Therefore, that would put the number of mainframes at
something like 9400.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL
Sent: Friday, April 06,
I heard that there are about 8000 CICS licenses which run on 85% of the
mainframes. Therefore, that would put the number of mainframes at something
like 9400.
I heard! You heard! She heard!
IBM has been very closed mouth about how many exist.
So, we can guess until the cows come home.
How
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 20:43:29 +, Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I heard that there are about 8000 CICS licenses which run on 85% of the
mainframes. Therefore, that would put the number of mainframes at
something like 9400.
But, the 230,000 Oracle licences tell a story all by themselves.
The
I've had an interesting situation take place today across 3 user IDs
(mine).
Any file I have in a DSLIST if selected by E for edit or V for view
gets the following message:
Initial edit macro set
And the PF1 just doesn't give me a sufficient clue. And since I don't
use edit macros of the INITIAL
On the DSLIST command line enter DSLSET to get the setting for the
dataset list.
Place a '/' next to Display Edit/View entry panel and then END.
Edit or view a dataset.
With this setting, when you edit a dataset you should get an initial
edit/view panel where an initial macro can be set.
My
the edit macro should come from your clist/rexx concatenation. if it isn't
set by the edit panel, it's set by the edited dsn's suffix qualifer or the
imac pdf variable.
snip
Any file I have in a DSLIST if selected by E for edit or V for view
gets the following message:
Initial edit macro set
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George, William (DHS-ITSD)
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where would an EDIT MACRO get set?
On the DSLIST command line enter DSLSET to get the setting
Not really. Since the *ix boxes max out at 30% utilization, you need
a whole lot more of em to keep up with the workload. Let's compare
TB to TB and see what the numbers are.
At 04:43 PM 4/6/2007, Ted MacNEIL said:
But, the 230,000 Oracle licences tell a story all by themselves.
The
Ted MacNEIL wrote:
I heard! You heard! She heard!
[snip]
Of course, you know that 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
I heard it was closer to 90%. :-)
(8-{}
But, the 230,000 Oracle licences tell a story all by themselves.
Not as compelling a story as might appear at
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Kelly
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:21 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Where would an EDIT MACRO get set?
the edit macro should come from your clist/rexx concatenation. if it
isn't
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:21:11 -0500, Tom Marchant m42tom-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you for your well reasoned response, Alan. On this point,
though,
I disagree. Customers are not leaving the mainframe because theit IT
needs are shrinking, unless by shrinking you mean growing at a
slower
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:29:58 -0700, Edward Jaffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raw license counts are a much less important measure than how
much data
is stored and how many end users are accessing that data.
But, Ed, that's a technologhical view. If you charge on a per-CPU or
per-duo basis, the
Not really. Since the *ix boxes max out at 30% utilization, you need a whole
lot more of em to keep up with the workload. Let's compare
TB to TB and see what the numbers are.
230,000 time .3 is 69,000.
Compare and contrast.
-
Too busy driving to stop for gas!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 4:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is
falling!!)
SNIP
But there have also been a lot
Uh, apples to oranges? We need some numbers from the Winter Corp.
At 06:09 PM 4/6/2007, Ted MacNEIL said:
Not really. Since the *ix boxes max out at 30% utilization, you
need a whole lot more of em to keep up with the workload. Let's compare
TB to TB and see what the numbers are.
230,000
On Apr 6, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Thompson, Steve wrote:
SNIP
BTW - IBM is partly culpable here. I know of shops (NDAs preclude me
from naming names) that were pushing bring in new systems so they
could
have GUI based applications and decreed
--snip---
Giovanni said...The easiest way to Reorg VSAM FIles is to use HSM, but
doesn't HSM use ADRDSSU under the covers? The last time I looked ADRDSSU
doesn't REORG...Please let me know...
-unsnip
AFAIK, the
Timothy, you're probably right as far as you go, but you, and other,
seem to have forgotten a very important aspect of running that cheap
z/800, etc. I refer to site preparation and operating costs. Not many of
us can afford three-phase power in our basements or garages or offices;
nor can we
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 07:08:37 -0500, Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I hope this means that the subsystem and exit interfaces will be
simplified and/or better documented.
Actually, its kind of funny that you mention the exits because I just finished
an APAR that greatly improves both the
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 03/29/2007
10:53:16 AM:
An unlocked user task running PASN^+HASN issued a branch entry post with
ASCB
and MEMREL=NO.
Upon return the PSW began with 04 - IO and external disabled.
A few instructions later an 0C4 occured because
60 matches
Mail list logo
