Just like any other company!
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of DASDBILL2
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:40 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 server business to Lenovo (was Levono)
IBM's
STSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 12:38:18 PM
Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 server business to Lenovo (was Levono)
dasdbi...@comcast.net (DASDBILL2) writes:
> IBM's core business is making profits for their stockholders. All else is
> details of implementation.
IBM
t 1.2B into Cloud Data
Centers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014b.html#25 IBM Asian Revenues Crash, Adjusted
Earnings Beat On Tax Rate Fudge; Debt Rises 20% To Fund Stock Buybacks
past posts mentioning selling x86 server business to lenovo (most
from last spring)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html
; details of implementation.
>
> Bill Fairchild
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Tony Harminc"
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:26:28 PM
> Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 server business to Lenovo (was Levono)
&
IBM's core business is making profits for their stockholders. All else is
details of implementation.
Bill Fairchild
- Original Message -
From: "Tony Harminc"
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:26:28 PM
Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 ser
>somebody over in linkedin ibm group just mentioned that
>they are trying to figure out how much of the sale is
>cash and how much is levono stock.
Then they're not trying very hard. That exact information is contained in
paragraph one of IBM's press release:
http://www.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressr
Nyuck nyuck.
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
Behalf Of Tony Harminc
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:26 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 server business to Lenovo (was Levono)
On 23 January
On 23 January 2014 12:43, Charles Mills wrote:
> I think IBM's core business is (1) services and (2) software.
I don't think IBM has been in the core business since the early 1970s.
Tony H.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff /
Don't watch much TV, usually have it on to News or Sports. The Smarter
planet adds are pretty but not very pithy. More like recruitment posters. The
other one is the 'Watson' MIPs ad for big data. Void of practical solutions
to business problems. Back to shutterfly-it's fun for a while.
to be people who better recognize
> the importance of the mainframe to IBM's future.
> Harry
>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:27:40 -0500
>> From: aledlhug...@aol.com
>> Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 server business to Levono
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>&
; Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:27:40 -0500
> From: aledlhug...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 server business to Levono
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>
> I've spent several hours reading news reports from far and wide about this
> much anticipated development.
> Wha
rsday, January 23, 2014 8:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM sells x86 server business to Levono
I've spent several hours reading news reports from far and wide about this
much anticipated development.
What I would like to know is, what does this now mean to IBM's core
ect
and it never came to fruition ... somebody over in linkedin ibm group
just mentioned that they are trying to figure out how much of the sale
is cash and how much is levono stock.
part of this is lots of x86 in clouds ... x86 server chip manufactures
claiming more x86 server chips shipping to c
ears.
Perhaps it is the cold weather here in Florida - my old school friend back in
Wales tells me it is warmer there than here!
Cheers!
Aled L Hughes.
-Original Message-
From: John McKown
To: IBM-MAIN
Sent: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:13
Subject: IBM sells x86 server business to Le
http://www.itworld.com/hardware/401502/lenovo-agrees-buy-ibms-server-business-23-billion
For 2.3 billion dollars (U.S., Australian, or Canadian not specified, but I
guess U.S.).
--
Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of
everything and the Wirth of nothing?
Maranat
n List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 10:13 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: X86 server
>
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 07:03, McKown, John wrote:
> >
> > ... Oh, there is also "icron" to schedul
On Aug 27, 2012, at 07:03, McKown, John wrote:
>
> ... Oh, there is also "icron" to schedule background tasks based on creation,
> update, or deletion of files. At least on Linux. I don't know if other
> systems have the "inotify" interface.
>
Would this solve the "file monitor" requirement c
yone with the proper expertise, without
talking to a single employee of Amazon.
... snip ...
Not sure what an EC2 instance is made of for this (&/or if they are all
the same), an e5-2600 would have 16 cores and 6742 instances would be
aggregate of 107,872 cores (aka processors).
past po
Batch on other systems:
(can Darren or someone please report to L-SOFT problems
replying via the web interface to plies such as Rex's
that have:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
They can be read clearly. When replying, quoted text
appears as unre
For those interested in cross-platform batch (which we refer to as "z/OS
Hybrid Batch"), you may be interested in the following case studies:
"z/OS Hybrid Batch Processing: Generating a multi-page PDF document with
Co:Z"
http://dovetail.com/products/casestudyitext.html
"z/OS Hybrid Batch Processi
M
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: X86 server
>
> As far as "no batch" on non-mainframe platforms, I agree with you that
> it is pretty much a matter of verbiage and available toolset. Having
> worked with both AIX and HP-UX over the past 10 years, they d
atform, then pass control back to a mainframe job once the work is done on
the other platform.
Rex
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of McKown, John
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 8:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Sub
Inc. –The Chesapeake Life Insurance
Company®, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA
Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Mark van der Eynden
> The elimination of batch which seems
> to be feasible on non-mainframe architectures alone is a killer.
There is no elimination of batch, anywhere.
It might go by another name, it might be 'hidden', but there's always batch.
Remember to remind the auditors of that next time they come around a
On 26 Aug 2012 14:00:54 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main zman wrote:
>Good lord! Can you PLEASE try to post *vaguely* relevant material? This
>makes you look like a troll.
Looking at this material (in the three postings from Lynn) which I
consider highly relevant, I am wondering about the long ter
Good lord! Can you PLEASE try to post *vaguely* relevant material? This
makes you look like a troll.
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
> scott_j_f...@yahoo.com (Scott Ford) writes:
> > I saw the same exercise in a pharm. company trying to go from MVS,
> > multiple Lpars
scott_j_f...@yahoo.com (Scott Ford) writes:
> I saw the same exercise in a pharm. company trying to go from MVS,
> multiple Lpars to unix. Several millions of $$$ and it was a
> bustsome applications were difficult to convert
in the 90s, one of the biggest efforts was by the financial industr
the z series?
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#28 X86 server
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#29 X86 server
both refer to TPC benchmarks ... which have benchmarks that are RDBMS
transaction oriented with heavy disk i/o (as mentioned looking
at number of transactions/thruput, cost of transac
st in this thread:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#28 X86 server
there was reference to older mainframe TPC benchmark ... there was some
published work for z10 which was then prorated by 50/30 to give estimate
for z196 ... as a means of making other thruput comparisons.
--
virtualization exp
I saw the same exercise in a pharm. company trying to go from MVS, multiple
Lpars to unix.
Several millions of $$$ and it was a bustsome applications were difficult
to convert
Scott ford
www.identityforge.com
On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Ed Gould wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 6:06 AM, A
On Aug 26, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Arthur Fichtl wrote:
SNIP-
OTOH, if you look at the global big new companies (e.g. Google,
Amazon, Facebook), nobody of them is running MF systems because
these companies are not captivated by legacy systems.
Instead
se when idle ... but able to
>instantaneously come up to full-speed.
>
>They've also openly published their findings ... hoping to encourage the
>component vendors to compete & improve their products. However, their
>findings have also tended to influence blade component se
In <2174580136452535.wa.paulgboulderaim@listserv.ua.edu>, on
08/24/2012
at 10:31 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
>On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:13:49 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: >
>> ...
>>max configured z196 with 80 processors is rated for 50BIPS and goes for
>>$28M (about $560,000/BIPS) ...
>>
ng to encourage the
component vendors to compete & improve their products. However, their
findings have also tended to influence blade component selection and
assembly by others.
recent posts in this thread
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#16 X86 server
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.ht
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:06:13 +0200, Arthur Fichtl wrote:
>
>OTOH, if you look at the global big new companies (e.g. Google, Amazon,
>Facebook), nobody of them is running MF systems because these companies
>are not captivated by legacy systems.
>
>Instead, Google (as known to the public) is running
Just an additional comment to the past discussions.
I agree that a big MF installation (e.g. running a number of sysplexes
of z10 EC CECs or z196 with a number of say 10 to 50 LPARs) has in fact
no reason to migrate to Intel based machines.
I was working for a Bavarian manufacturing company a
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 22:13:49 -0400, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> ...
>max configured z196 with 80 processors is rated for 50BIPS and goes for
>$28M (about $560,000/BIPS) ...
>
>ibm has base price of $1815 for e5-2600 blade ... which have ratings at
>527BIPS (about $3.44/BIPS), ...
>
A factor of
but are also only doing development.
> >
> > Scott ford
> > www.identityforge.com
>
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#16 X86 server
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#18 X86 server
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#19 X86 server
> http://www.garlic.com/
> to the P390s.
> Everything worked like a champ. I am now on Z/Pdt z/os1.12 on a intel
> i7', everything s good, but are also only doing development.
>
> Scott ford
> www.identityforge.com
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#16 X86 server
http://www.garlic.co
Just for my 2 cents worth, ran P390s in one environment attached to two T1s.
Attached to them we're 3800 laser printers and some 3274s we couldnt replace.
The mainframes were an hour plus away in NJ, and our printed output queued up
to the P390s.
Everything worked like a champ. I am now on Z/Pdt z
mw...@ssfcu.org (Ward, Mike S) writes:
> IBM has always been a hardware company. In the 60's they wrote
> operating systems and gave them away as long as you purchased the
> hardware from them to run it on.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#16 X86 server
http://www.ga
for those systems that we can afford the risk, yes, we will go to the
> cloud.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#16 X86 server
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#18 X86 server
in ha/cmp we spent some amount of time with siac ... ran dataprocessing
for exchange ... they had a c
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) writes:
> "has always been" -> "had always been". As you indicated, at first
> software was written in order to sell the hardware. It was basically
> "overhead". However, when PCMs such as Amdahl came along and simply
> started redistributing IBM softwar
.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
Anne & Lynn Wheeler [l...@garlic.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:11 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: X86 server
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) writes:
> X64 hardware, as muc
2012 11:40 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: X86 server
>
> IBM has always been a hardware company. In the 60's they wrote
> operating systems and gave them away as long as you purchased the
> hardware from them to run it on.
>
> -Original Message-
&g
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:00 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: X86 server
Which costs less?
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:40:01 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote:
>On 8/13/2012 10:01 PM, Jake anderson wrote:
>> Does IBM provides support running Z/OS on X86 ?
>
>Yes, with its
john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) writes:
> X64 hardware, as much as it has improved, is still not as reliable or
> have the I/O capacity of the z hardware. E.g.: We had a TCM fail
> once. A spare picked up the work, automatically restarting the
> instruction stream, with no outage of an
John
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 7:02 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: X86 server
I now don't believe much of anybody when they say that they will accept any
responsibility for anything. Given time, they will renege on any agreement that
they possibly can get away with reneg
John McKown wrote:
>From what I recall from some time ago (my personal memory is like FLASH - the
>more I write, the more it is "worn out" and the faster it fails), back when
>PSI(?) had a z emulator on Itanium, IBM sued them. Some of the reasons given
>were:
>(1) that z/OS had a reputation in t
a the expense of turning off some
customers.
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of
R.S. [r.skoru...@bremultibank.com.pl]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:11 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: X86 server
W
t; -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU]
> On Behalf Of R.S.
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:11 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: X86 server
>
> W dniu 2012-08-23 04:23, McKown, John pisze:
> >
W dniu 2012-08-23 04:23, McKown, John pisze:
X64 hardware, as much as it has improved, is still not as reliable or
have the I/O capacity of the z hardware. E.g.: We had a TCM fail
once. A spare picked up the work, automatically restarting the
instruction stream, with no outage of any sort and no
Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: X86 server
>
> Which costs less?
>
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:40:01 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote:
>
> >On 8/13/2012 10:01 PM, Jake anderson wrote:
> >> Does IBM p
Which costs less?
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:40:01 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote:
>On 8/13/2012 10:01 PM, Jake anderson wrote:
>> Does IBM provides support running Z/OS on X86 ?
>
>Yes, with its RD&T offering:
>http://www.ibm.com/software/rational/products/devtest/systemz/
>
What's IBM's economic ration
On 8/13/2012 10:01 PM, Jake anderson wrote:
Does IBM provides support running Z/OS on X86 ?
Yes, with its RD&T offering:
http://www.ibm.com/software/rational/products/devtest/systemz/
--
Edward E Jaffe
Phoenix Software International, Inc
831 Parkview Drive North
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-338-
In ,
on 08/14/2012
at 08:58 AM, "McKown, John" said:
>Just a guess on my part, but the OP may know that Linux runs natively
>on many hardware systems: i386, x86_64, Power, i, and z. He may have
>been wondering if z/OS could also run on multiple architectures. Of
>course, on reason that Linux r
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Elardus Engelbrecht <
elardus.engelbre...@sita.co.za> wrote:
> Unrelated question, now we're on this jolly joyride: Is it true that z/VM
> can be run on a Pentium machine? Perhaps as a guest under Linux / Unix or
> Win7 (Virtual machine)?
>
In what way? Under Herc
EGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of zMan
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:39 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: X86 server
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jake anderson
wro
McKown, John wrote:
>Just a guess on my part, but the OP may know that Linux runs natively on many
>hardware systems: i386, x86_64, Power, i, and z.
True, if you can port the source or the compiled object codes to that platform.
The C language is very handy for such porting. (disclaimer - I ha
Jake anderson wrote:
>Does IBM provides support running Z/OS on X86 ?
Did you ask them?
And please follow zMan's suggestion...
Groete / Greetings
Elardus Engelbrecht
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instruc
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of zMan
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:39 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: X86 server
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jake anderson
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> &
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jake anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does IBM provides support running Z/OS on X86 ?
Do you mean, "Will IBM provide support for z/OS if you're running it under
emulation on Intel hardware?", or "Does IBM provide System z emulation so
you can run z/OS on Intel hardware
Hi,
Does IBM provides support running Z/OS on X86 ?
Jake
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Tony Harminc wrote:
> On 13 August 2012 11:06, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
> wrote:
> > In ,
> > on 08/13/2012 at 02:16 PM, Henri Kuiper said:
> >
> >>If the latter is the case : feel free to contact me.
On 13 August 2012 11:06, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
wrote:
> In ,
> on 08/13/2012 at 02:16 PM, Henri Kuiper said:
>
>>If the latter is the case : feel free to contact me. You can take a
>>sneak peak at http://zdevops.com
>>We do z/OS virtualizations on x86 hardware :).
>
> What about software lice
In
,
on 08/13/2012
at 02:16 PM, Henri Kuiper said:
>If the latter is the case : feel free to contact me. You can take a
>sneak peak at http://zdevops.com
>We do z/OS virtualizations on x86 hardware :).
What about software licensing? What advantage do you have over
Hercules, which is free?
--
>>> On 8/13/2012 at 11:32 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
> Would this be more like Platform Solutions Inc., or like Hercules, or
> like Neon ZPrime?
I suspect it's more like (as in "is") zPDT, or it's cousin RDz.
Mark Post
--
For
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:16:14 +0200, Henri Kuiper wrote:
>
>Or are you hinting at running z/OS from x86 hardware?
>
>If the latter is the case : feel free to contact me. You can take a sneak
>peak at http://zdevops.com
>We do z/OS virtualizations on x86 hardware :).
>
Would this be more like Platfo
Jake,
What x86 server are you referring to? Are you talking about the x68blades
in a zBX-frame connected to the mainframe?
Or are you hinting at running z/OS from x86 hardware?
If the latter is the case : feel free to contact me. You can take a sneak
peak at http://zdevops.com
We do z/OS
Dear All,
Could someone provide more information on X86 server ? I am just curious to
know if this server is a mimic of Z.OS ? If it is so Migrating from Z/OS to
X86 will be a good idea ?
Jake
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe
69 matches
Mail list logo
