Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

- 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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld - Multiprise 3000

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

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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.sk

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

"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.

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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.

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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. >

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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.

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

>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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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.

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

inal 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 &quo

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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 /

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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 e

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

. 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

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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 wa

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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

Re: LzLabs in ComputerWorld

@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

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

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 wrote: > http://www.computerworlduk.com/infrastructure/lzlabs-promises-end-mainframe-migration-woes-with-software-defined-approach-3645686/ > seems

LzLabs in ComputerWorld

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