Re: Mainframe co-op
Assuming that structure is free for all to use! (Open Source joke) On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 12:39 AM Timothy Sipples wrote: > There's a good organizational structure potentially available: > > https://www.openmainframeproject.org > > I assume the goal ought to be to have something better than the Master the > Mainframe Learning System, already available free of charge: > > https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/education/master-the-mainframe > > - - - - - - - - - - > Timothy Sipples > I.T. Architect Executive > Digital Asset & Other Industry Solutions > IBM Z & LinuxONE > - - - - - - - - - - > E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- 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: Mainframe co-op
That's correct, happy to answer any questions about the project :-) Possibly as a new thread it better suited. Deeply honored to be mentioned on this list, thanks Grant! On Sat, Jul 4, 2020, 09:52 Mike Schwab wrote: > I would assume the goal to be 'use PC disks as mainframe DASD'. > > On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 3:46 AM kekronbekron > <02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > Would love to know more about what your FICON buddy is working on Grant. > > If you wanna share (prefer off-list?), please email :) > > > > Unless IBM explicitly sets up college courses or NDA-tied free-roam > access or whatever, it's only going to be the likes of zAcademy, i.e., > restricted lab environments to basically market at the command-line, much > like walking the dotten line in an acquarium/zoo/etc. (if you turn to your > right, you can issue 2 commands to Spark on Z) > > > > Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, > when it was first introduced? > > > > - KB > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Friday, July 3, 2020 9:48 PM, Grant Taylor < > 023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > On 7/3/20 10:12 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have > > > > DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for > > > > z/OS for his CPC. > > > > > > One of the people I know is developing his own FICON connected DASD by > > > reading any and all documents he can get his hands on. > > > > > > What do we, as the mainframe community, and IBM, as the big name, need > > > to do to encourage these extremely creative, resourceful, and driven > > > people better access to a functioning mainframe so that they can use > > > their creative talents and drive to help further the mainframe? > > > > > > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS > 3.8j, > > > which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, and > > > backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any prerequisites. > > > > > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 years > > > ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a moment > > > where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of these > > > creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Grant. . . . > > > unix || die > > > > > > - > > > > > > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
There's a good organizational structure potentially available: https://www.openmainframeproject.org I assume the goal ought to be to have something better than the Master the Mainframe Learning System, already available free of charge: https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/z/education/master-the-mainframe - - - - - - - - - - Timothy Sipples I.T. Architect Executive Digital Asset & Other Industry Solutions IBM Z & LinuxONE - - - - - - - - - - E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
On 7/4/20 7:20 PM, Seymour J Metz wrote: To clarify, I believe that such a co-op would need to identify the potential issues and hash them out up front in order for the idea to be viable. In some cases there could be a consensus, in others an arbitrary choice might be necessary. What is important is avoiding unpleasant surprises as much a possible. Agreed. URL? - http://moshix.dynu.net/ - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmD2RvHHbEaBJyWYyuBL4-kWr6vNEkR5B Correction: It's "hnet", not "hecnet". Sorry for the mistake. hnet is a bitnet reincarnation. HECnet is DECnet reincarnation. Both by the hobbyist community. Did I mention that I hate google? I wish that there were a real search engine, one where I would be a customer rather than a product and in which I only got hits that matched my search criteria. What would they have to charge for that to be economically viable? Sadly, my current employer ties my hands. -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
To clarify, I believe that such a co-op would need to identify the potential issues and hash them out up front in order for the idea to be viable. In some cases there could be a consensus, in others an arbitrary choice might be necessary. What is important is avoiding unpleasant surprises as much a possible. > HECnet that Moshix is touting. URL? Did I mention that I hate google? I wish that there were a real search engine, one where I would be a customer rather than a product and in which I only got hits that matched my search criteria. What would they have to charge for that to be economically viable? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Grant Taylor [023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 1:50 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op On 7/3/20 11:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Interesting. Some questions come to mind. Discussion is good. > Would it have to have current software to attract the open source > community? I don't think that bleeding edge is needed in any way shape or form. My personal interest would be something in the z/OS family. The bottom end of what is still supported would be a minimum desired version. But I think anything in z/OS is better than was is readily available now. > What sort of support would be available from IBM and from volunteers? I would not assume any support from IBM for things like PMRs. Though I suppose that is a possible option. I would think that much of the support would come from the community. > Would IBM partially subsidize it if you could show that it would > expand the market? I have no idea. I would not count on any such support to get started. As such, any support from IBM would be icing on the cake. > How would you make it known to the open source community? I don't know. I would think that members commenting about it on various social media channels would be a good start. It would probably need it's own mailing list and / or discussion channels. > Would it be involved with the Academic community and would it > coordinate with IBM academic programs? I don't object to such. But I don't want it to be beholden to such either. > Would it include a repository or would it rely on, e.g., Bitbucket, > GitLab, Phabricator, SourceForge? I think it would behoove the project for it to offer it's own repositories and similar services; mailing list, chat, etc. The idea being to avoid external dependency. That being said, I don't see any reason that members couldn't choose to use their own external repository, etc. > What sort of infrastructure would it need? Listserv? Online courses? I see the current desired things: - repository - web page - mailing list(s) - I really like Mailman's ability to do topic based mailing lists. Subscribe, pick your topic(s), etc. - chat would be nice - irc - slack - other Ironically, I think all of these could be hosted on the mainframe itself. Possibly Linux on z. I would like to see options for people to connect their guest VM to the fledgling HECnet that Moshix is touting. I think these types of activities allow people to grow and learn in atypical areas. Want to play with DASD replication? Sure. -- I naively assume that something could be set up under z/VM to allow a z/OS guest to play with multiple DASDs to test and learn about a concept. Want to play with IPL parameters, go ahead. Want to play with HCD, yep, you can do that too. -- I naively assume that IOCDS / HCD is still a thing in a z/OS guest VM. > Would user assistance be free, chargeable or multi-tiered, with simple > questions and bug reporting being free? All very good questions. I would hope that there is some free best effort much like the existing community. I would be happy to see some professional / consultation services available much people can hire a tutor for many different subjects. I would expect those arrangements to be between the guest VM subscriber and the ""tutor. I would want to avoid this overarching co-op from being a profit center. The purpose is to make things accessible and as affordable as reasonably possible to do so. I chose "co-op" on purpose. At least based on my understanding of the term. I would want to put things in place to prevent people from abusing services and / or using guest VMs to enable them to make a profit by hosting line of business applications. I don't know if this is even possible or not. But perhaps put a resource quota that only allows the guest VM to be active 20-25 days a month. You pick when it's convenient for your guest VM to be shut down. But hopefully that would prevent businesses from abusing it for production. This is also where the low MIPS comes into play. En
Re: Mainframe co-op
> Pennies. The Toolkit is highly worth it. I was only confirming Steve's understanding that it was sepatrly priced, not arguing against licensing it. In fact, I consider it almost mandatory that developers use control flow macros, and the Toolkit set is the obvious one to standardize on. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Jackson, Rob [rwjack...@firsthorizon.com] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 6:32 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op Pennies. The Toolkit is highly worth it. First Horizon Bank Mainframe Technical Support -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 6:17 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op [External Email. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.] > Years ago, in Silicon Valley, I worked on ACS/OBS WYLBUR. Would you consider looking at the Wikipedia article on Wylbur and adding some information? > Meanwhile, you must have HLASM and probably want to have the toolkit > (separately chargeable as I understand it). Yes, HLASM itself is bundled but the Toolkit is an extra charge. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of ste...@copper.net [ste...@copper.net] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 3:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op Years ago, in Silicon Valley, I worked on ACS/OBS WYLBUR. We had a P/390 that I had tuned the I/O for to really speed it up. ACS also sold time on their systems. Contractually, we were only allowed to charge access costs for the P/390. It was not to be a "production" machine. So developers could buy access to it, but not on a "per CPU time" charge and related. We did have a few takers for the P/390. The system Charles has mentioned has certain caveats and issues. One can't control their z/OS image, because the DASD for the RES is controlled by the data center. If one were to obtain a z/OS license, and were to get it to run under KVM, then one could have a "production" system, where all source is handled, compiles done, etc., while all system level testing is done on another image. There are costs with this that have to be overcome. Let's take a look into the future: IBM is going to put out a release of VM and/or z/OS that will not run on a z/?? CEC and that is the one you have (or SUSE/RHEL, etc. does the same with KVM etc.). You will now have to migrate to another machine. Can you get that machine on the used market at a good price? Meanwhile, you must have HLASM and probably want to have the toolkit (separately chargeable as I understand it). You will need all the compilers being used COBOL, PL/1, c/C++, etc.. Can you get them under a development license? Ok, let's say you can. You may need to have a small machine that is used for compiles so that you do not have to pay for the compilers on the bigger box. Given that you are going to have those who are doing development where they will need to have multiple CPUs, what you want is the slowest machine you can get (sub-model?) but with 4-6 General CPs for race condition testing. Now depending on the number of people/entities interested in this system, one may need multiple LPARs and possibly CECs to handle the workload. If I could (and because of who I work for, and for those of you who think I work for Humana, I did at one time, but things change...), I would go to a University or college and propose this: A Mainframe Academic center. And I would tie that with somehow teaching COBOL (it ain't dead, and it is still growing), and possibly CICS & DB2. If IBM still does an academic licensing thing, then this is the cheapest way to go that I am aware of. And if you can get the school to do an open semester year tuition allowing one to do self directed studies Believe me, with all the outsourced contractors I deal with who have degrees in IT Theory and absolutely no PROGRAMMING experience outside of some OO language, I could see this being something that might get some traction since with COVID-19 we just found out that we can do classes virtually to anywhere (those of us who have been working from Home for decades already knew that). And you might get certain companies to throw in their tools, such as z/XDC for a low price. Ok, maybe more than 2 cents, but these are my observations having done some of this before Outsourcing organizations became Cloud companies. THE HEADACHE not yet mentioned is, one may not be able to get support for this system. So one may have to wait until a production machine somewhere hits your problem to get an APAR/PTF. Regards, Steve Thompson ---
Re: Mainframe co-op
> Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, > when it was first introduced? TSO was a way to run unprivileged applications interactively, with internal users, external users or a mixture. Authorized commands, TESTAUTH, etc. came much later. CP=67 is a better model for users who need to tinker with the OS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of kekronbekron [02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 11:46 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op Would love to know more about what your FICON buddy is working on Grant. If you wanna share (prefer off-list?), please email :) Unless IBM explicitly sets up college courses or NDA-tied free-roam access or whatever, it's only going to be the likes of zAcademy, i.e., restricted lab environments to basically market at the command-line, much like walking the dotten line in an acquarium/zoo/etc. (if you turn to your right, you can issue 2 commands to Spark on Z) Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, when it was first introduced? - KB ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, July 3, 2020 9:48 PM, Grant Taylor <023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On 7/3/20 10:12 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > > I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have > > DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for > > z/OS for his CPC. > > One of the people I know is developing his own FICON connected DASD by > reading any and all documents he can get his hands on. > > What do we, as the mainframe community, and IBM, as the big name, need > to do to encourage these extremely creative, resourceful, and driven > people better access to a functioning mainframe so that they can use > their creative talents and drive to help further the mainframe? > > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS 3.8j, > which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, and > backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any prerequisites. > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 years > ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a moment > where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of these > creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. > > > - > > Grant. . . . > unix || die > > - > > 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
I was using the term 'CPU upgrade' loosely as going from one 'model' to another with or without a change in technology. It's true that IBM offers (sometimes deep) software discounts for technology upgrades. IBM, however, is only one player. Not long after tiered pricing was foisted on us, ISVs jumped on the bandwagon. Of course they blamed their move on IBM. Just playing the same game, they said. While IBM discounts *their* software pricing for upgrades, ISVs have no incentive to follow suit. As Joel points out, the easiest upgrade is simply activating CPs that are already installed. We have a box that includes an extra CP that we actually bought and paid for at acquisition time. Turning it on is still a battle with our bean counters because of *software* costs. And the big ISVs know when you're turning on a CP because their enabling key is based on model. They're only too happy to ship you a new key once the new bill is paid. . . 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 On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2020 5:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Mainframe co-op CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL The easiest hardware upgrade by far is turning on more CPs or bumping the aggregate CP capacity on existing hardware. Raising the MSU capacity on existing hardware never decreases software cost and usually increases software costs, sometimes very significantly. Note that Jesse refers to a CPU upgrade, not a processor upgrade. It is true that replacing the entire processor system and running the same workload on newer hardware has lowered software per-MSU costs in recent years, which provides incentive for upgrading a processor sooner rather than later. However, if the motivation for an upgrade to newer technology is to remove hardware constraints on your workload, a new system that is able to satisfy the latent workload demand also has a good chance of using enough additional MSUs to more than offset any new-hardware software discount. One would have to assume that the intent of IBM's pricing strategies is that the cumulative effect of all processor upgrades would be increased revenue for IBM. Joel C. Ewing On 7/4/20 12:33 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 7/3/2020 12:16 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >> Ah, software cost. I still remember the first CPU upgrade after the >> insinuation of tiered pricing. We budgeted for the hardware and >> extracted approval from management. Then we were bowled over when the >> software bills rolled in. Of course it was our fault for not >> considering the budget busting impact of increased MIPS. Not sure IBM >> thought it through. We now refrain from hardware upgrades because of >> software costs. > > The opposite is true. For many years now, hardware upgrades have > resulted in *lower* software costs! > > This change in behavior began back in the z9 days (2007?) when IBM > began adjusting MSU ratings to provide "Technology Dividends." Once > the folly of that hardware "dial-back" methodology became clear, they > stopped "monkeying" with processor ratings and focused instead on > providing software discounts based on which generation of hardware you > were running. These discounts take the form of what IBM today calls > Technology Transition Charges and Technology Update Pricing. For example: > > 1. Suppose you have a 400 MSU zEC12. You receive a 6.3% discount on >AWLC pricing. > 2. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z13. You receive an 11% discount on AWLC >pricing. > 3. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z14. You receive a 16% discount on AWLC >pricing. > 4. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z15. You receive an 18% discount on AWLC >pricing. > > So, if you don't grow your CP-based MIPS when upgrading from a zEC12 > to a z15, you get 35% faster IFLs, zIIPs, and ICFs and your software > bill goes down over 14%. > > Alternatively, because of the way the pricing curves work, you can > upgrade your CP-based MIPS *far* more than 14% and keep your software > bill essentially unchanged. > > -- Joel C. Ewing -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
I mange a data center where we provide both 'out-sourcing' and DR facilities. Several years ago, we tried to put some sort of co-op together for developers or hobbyist, but nobody seemed interested. I have extra processors on hand and I also have other processors that are used only at specific parts of the year for DR testing. I also have a non-IBM business partner that has small dasd and vtl units that has indicated that he might support so sort of co-op setup. (He monitors this list and has read this thread.) http://visara.com/ I would be willing to take this back to my management for reconsideration, but before I did this, someone would need to take the lead and look at how it could be set up. My initial thoughts are that some 'entity' needs to own the licenses and someone needs to control who has access. This may or may not be the same. How IBM defines a 'developer' is important here. I think you would need to set up a development only entity so that you can get free software licenses.This same entity can pay for stuff like networking, power and other non-software related items and charge those back to the people in the co-op as dues. I thank this can work legally with IBM rules for developers. If not, then there would also be software costs to be allocated by the co-op. From my side, being responsible for a data center, there would be some VPN requirements and some restrictions as to who can do IOCPs and such. And, I think VM would be a requirement. Again, just some initial thoughts. Tony Thigpen -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
The easiest hardware upgrade by far is turning on more CPs or bumping the aggregate CP capacity on existing hardware. Raising the MSU capacity on existing hardware never decreases software cost and usually increases software costs, sometimes very significantly. Note that Jesse refers to a CPU upgrade, not a processor upgrade. It is true that replacing the entire processor system and running the same workload on newer hardware has lowered software per-MSU costs in recent years, which provides incentive for upgrading a processor sooner rather than later. However, if the motivation for an upgrade to newer technology is to remove hardware constraints on your workload, a new system that is able to satisfy the latent workload demand also has a good chance of using enough additional MSUs to more than offset any new-hardware software discount. One would have to assume that the intent of IBM's pricing strategies is that the cumulative effect of all processor upgrades would be increased revenue for IBM. Joel C. Ewing On 7/4/20 12:33 AM, Ed Jaffe wrote: > On 7/3/2020 12:16 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: >> Ah, software cost. I still remember the first CPU upgrade after the >> insinuation of tiered pricing. We budgeted for the hardware and >> extracted approval from management. Then we were bowled over when the >> software bills rolled in. Of course it was our fault for not >> considering the budget busting impact of increased MIPS. Not sure IBM >> thought it through. We now refrain from hardware upgrades because of >> software costs. > > The opposite is true. For many years now, hardware upgrades have > resulted in *lower* software costs! > > This change in behavior began back in the z9 days (2007?) when IBM > began adjusting MSU ratings to provide "Technology Dividends." Once > the folly of that hardware "dial-back" methodology became clear, they > stopped "monkeying" with processor ratings and focused instead on > providing software discounts based on which generation of hardware you > were running. These discounts take the form of what IBM today calls > Technology Transition Charges and Technology Update Pricing. For example: > > 1. Suppose you have a 400 MSU zEC12. You receive a 6.3% discount on > AWLC pricing. > 2. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z13. You receive an 11% discount on AWLC > pricing. > 3. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z14. You receive a 16% discount on AWLC > pricing. > 4. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z15. You receive an 18% discount on AWLC > pricing. > > So, if you don't grow your CP-based MIPS when upgrading from a zEC12 > to a z15, you get 35% faster IFLs, zIIPs, and ICFs and your software > bill goes down over 14%. > > Alternatively, because of the way the pricing curves work, you can > upgrade your CP-based MIPS *far* more than 14% and keep your software > bill essentially unchanged. > > -- Joel C. Ewing -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
I would assume the goal to be 'use PC disks as mainframe DASD'. On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 3:46 AM kekronbekron <02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Would love to know more about what your FICON buddy is working on Grant. > If you wanna share (prefer off-list?), please email :) > > Unless IBM explicitly sets up college courses or NDA-tied free-roam access or > whatever, it's only going to be the likes of zAcademy, i.e., restricted lab > environments to basically market at the command-line, much like walking the > dotten line in an acquarium/zoo/etc. (if you turn to your right, you can > issue 2 commands to Spark on Z) > > Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, when > it was first introduced? > > - KB > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, July 3, 2020 9:48 PM, Grant Taylor > <023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > On 7/3/20 10:12 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > > > > I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have > > > DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for > > > z/OS for his CPC. > > > > One of the people I know is developing his own FICON connected DASD by > > reading any and all documents he can get his hands on. > > > > What do we, as the mainframe community, and IBM, as the big name, need > > to do to encourage these extremely creative, resourceful, and driven > > people better access to a functioning mainframe so that they can use > > their creative talents and drive to help further the mainframe? > > > > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS 3.8j, > > which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, and > > backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any prerequisites. > > > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 years > > ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a moment > > where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of these > > creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. > > > > > > - > > > > Grant. . . . > > unix || die > > > > - > > > > 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 -- 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: Mainframe co-op
On 7/3/2020 12:16 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: Ah, software cost. I still remember the first CPU upgrade after the insinuation of tiered pricing. We budgeted for the hardware and extracted approval from management. Then we were bowled over when the software bills rolled in. Of course it was our fault for not considering the budget busting impact of increased MIPS. Not sure IBM thought it through. We now refrain from hardware upgrades because of software costs. The opposite is true. For many years now, hardware upgrades have resulted in *lower* software costs! This change in behavior began back in the z9 days (2007?) when IBM began adjusting MSU ratings to provide "Technology Dividends." Once the folly of that hardware "dial-back" methodology became clear, they stopped "monkeying" with processor ratings and focused instead on providing software discounts based on which generation of hardware you were running. These discounts take the form of what IBM today calls Technology Transition Charges and Technology Update Pricing. For example: 1. Suppose you have a 400 MSU zEC12. You receive a 6.3% discount on AWLC pricing. 2. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z13. You receive an 11% discount on AWLC pricing. 3. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z14. You receive a 16% discount on AWLC pricing. 4. If you upgrade to a 400 MSU z15. You receive an 18% discount on AWLC pricing. So, if you don't grow your CP-based MIPS when upgrading from a zEC12 to a z15, you get 35% faster IFLs, zIIPs, and ICFs and your software bill goes down over 14%. Alternatively, because of the way the pricing curves work, you can upgrade your CP-based MIPS *far* more than 14% and keep your software bill essentially unchanged. -- Phoenix Software International Edward E. Jaffe Chief Technology Officer 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 https://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ This e-mail message, including any attachments, appended messages and the information contained therein, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient or have otherwise received this email message in error, any use, dissemination, distribution, review, storage or copying of this e-mail message and the information contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of this email message and do not otherwise utilize or retain this email message or any or all of the information contained therein. Although this email message and any attachments or appended messages are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its opening or use. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
On 7/3/20 9:46 PM, kekronbekron wrote: Would love to know more about what your FICON buddy is working on Grant. Check out Christian Svensson's (@blueCmd [1]) fejkon project on GitHub [2] and his blog (?) [3]. It's all public information. If you wanna share (prefer off-list?), please email :) Your email address seems to be specific to the listserve domain, so I don't know if it's you or the list. Feel free to reply directly to me if you want. (My address seems to be coming through unmodified to both my copy and to the bit.listserve.ibm-main Usenet newsgroup.) Unless IBM explicitly sets up college courses or NDA-tied free-roam access or whatever, it's only going to be the likes of zAcademy, i.e., restricted lab environments to basically market at the command-line, much like walking the dotten line in an acquarium/zoo/etc. (if you turn to your right, you can issue 2 commands to Spark on Z) I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for IBM to make the mainframe more accessible to hobbyists / students. I think MtM is the extent of their offer. Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, when it was first introduced? I don't yet know enough history. I'm still learning. [1] https://twitter.com/blueCmd [2] https://github.com/bluecmd/fejkon [3] https://blog.mainframe.dev -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
In fact, if IBM really does consider this, they might as well also build a near-real-time security monitoring product for Z, using CDPz as a source pump. Maybe Z Operations Insight Suite already has security-specific dashboard(s)/reports... - KB ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:22 AM, kekronbekron <02dee3fcae33-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Besides, any opportunity that allows others to poke at the platform, is an > opportunity well-left (for IBM). > > However, since IBM now has controls like > a) ALLOWUSERKEY > b) z/OS Authorized Code Scanner > c) near-real-time interfaces to SMF and tools like CDPz > > ... they should be capable of seting up a tightened & fully monitored > environment. > Don't believe the above will allow for messing around / learning HCD & other > I/O stuff, without them building an sim/emulated env. for that level of > control. > > - KB > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:16 AM, kekronbekron wrote: > > > > Would love to know more about what your FICON buddy is working on Grant. > > If you wanna share (prefer off-list?), please email :) > > Unless IBM explicitly sets up college courses or NDA-tied free-roam access > > or whatever, it's only going to be the likes of zAcademy, i.e., restricted > > lab environments to basically market at the command-line, much like walking > > the dotten line in an acquarium/zoo/etc. (if you turn to your right, you > > can issue 2 commands to Spark on Z) > > Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, when > > it was first introduced? > > > > - KB > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Friday, July 3, 2020 9:48 PM, Grant Taylor > > 023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/3/20 10:12 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > > > > > > I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have > > > > DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for > > > > z/OS for his CPC. > > > > > > One of the people I know is developing his own FICON connected DASD by > > > reading any and all documents he can get his hands on. > > > What do we, as the mainframe community, and IBM, as the big name, need > > > to do to encourage these extremely creative, resourceful, and driven > > > people better access to a functioning mainframe so that they can use > > > their creative talents and drive to help further the mainframe? > > > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS 3.8j, > > > which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, and > > > backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any prerequisites. > > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 years > > > ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a moment > > > where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of these > > > creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. > > > Grant. . . . > > > unix || die > > > 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
Besides, any opportunity that allows others to poke at the platform, is an opportunity well-left (for IBM). However, since IBM now has controls like a) ALLOWUSERKEY b) z/OS Authorized Code Scanner c) near-real-time interfaces to SMF and tools like CDPz ... they should be capable of seting up a tightened & fully monitored environment. Don't believe the above will allow for messing around / learning HCD & other I/O stuff, without them building an sim/emulated env. for that level of control. - KB ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, July 4, 2020 9:16 AM, kekronbekron wrote: > Would love to know more about what your FICON buddy is working on Grant. > If you wanna share (prefer off-list?), please email :) > > Unless IBM explicitly sets up college courses or NDA-tied free-roam access or > whatever, it's only going to be the likes of zAcademy, i.e., restricted lab > environments to basically market at the command-line, much like walking the > dotten line in an acquarium/zoo/etc. (if you turn to your right, you can > issue 2 commands to Spark on Z) > > Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, when > it was first introduced? > > - KB > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, July 3, 2020 9:48 PM, Grant Taylor > 023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu wrote: > > > > On 7/3/20 10:12 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > > > > I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have > > > DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for > > > z/OS for his CPC. > > > > One of the people I know is developing his own FICON connected DASD by > > reading any and all documents he can get his hands on. > > What do we, as the mainframe community, and IBM, as the big name, need > > to do to encourage these extremely creative, resourceful, and driven > > people better access to a functioning mainframe so that they can use > > their creative talents and drive to help further the mainframe? > > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS 3.8j, > > which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, and > > backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any prerequisites. > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 years > > ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a moment > > where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of these > > creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. > > > > Grant. . . . > > unix || die > > > > 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: Mainframe co-op
Would love to know more about what your FICON buddy is working on Grant. If you wanna share (prefer off-list?), please email :) Unless IBM explicitly sets up college courses or NDA-tied free-roam access or whatever, it's only going to be the likes of zAcademy, i.e., restricted lab environments to basically market at the command-line, much like walking the dotten line in an acquarium/zoo/etc. (if you turn to your right, you can issue 2 commands to Spark on Z) Funny though, because isn't this exactly what Time Sharing Option was, when it was first introduced? - KB ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, July 3, 2020 9:48 PM, Grant Taylor <023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > On 7/3/20 10:12 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: > > > I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have > > DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for > > z/OS for his CPC. > > One of the people I know is developing his own FICON connected DASD by > reading any and all documents he can get his hands on. > > What do we, as the mainframe community, and IBM, as the big name, need > to do to encourage these extremely creative, resourceful, and driven > people better access to a functioning mainframe so that they can use > their creative talents and drive to help further the mainframe? > > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS 3.8j, > which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, and > backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any prerequisites. > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 years > ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a moment > where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of these > creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. > > > - > > Grant. . . . > unix || die > > - > > 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: Mainframe co-op
1:41:52 -0700 > > A model to look at might be the IBM Innovation Center, Dallas. > > The price is higher than what I picture as your target: $550/month and up > > IIRC. You get two dedicated VM virtual machines: one that runs CMS and that > > you use as a console. You can do limited console automation with Rexx. And > > one on which you IPL z/OS. The z/OS -- any current version that you want -- > > runs from shared read-only DASD that IBM maintains: PTFs and so forth are > > IBM's problem. You get just about every IBM product that you could possibly > > want -- again, read-only DASD, with IBM doing the PTFs. > > For $550 IIRC you get everything you "need." More DASD, lots and lots of > > CPU cycles, etc. entail an upcharge. > > You "own" the configuration. If you want to muck up SYS1.PARMLIB so that > > z/OS will not IPL, it's your gun, your bullet, your foot. I have never done > > it, so I don't know, but I would assume IBM has some way of getting you > > back running. You "own" RACF. You can have as many userid's as you care to > > define. If you want to experiment with permissions in any way you choose, > > go at it. IBM provides very limited support: (1) if you need help you can > > ask by e-mail: sometimes you get great help, sometimes not; (2) no PMR > > support. You are not a z/OS licensee and thus not entitled to PMR support. > > I would assume that if you had some fatal problem you could go route (1) > > and get IBM to address it somehow: I have no experience. > > It is a good option for an individual or small company just a little above > > your intended price point. You have to a certain extent the best of both > > worlds: you have a z/OS that you can do with as you wish just as if you > > owned the box; and you have IBM doing the z/OS PTFs and basic installs and > > volume backups and so forth that I at least don't care to do. You do not > > have to do any initial install: your z/OS will IPL on day one. > > It is current hardware. I believe we are currently running on a z14. > > There are also offerings for VM, VSE and Linux IIRC but I am not familiar > > with them. > > You cannot do "production." You can let customers on for demos, but that is > > it. (Speaking from memory; I am not an IBM attorney.) You have to be a > > "software vendor" developing a "mainframe product" but my impression is > > that IBM's bar is pretty low: you don't have to be BMC or CA. > > You might consider using that as a model. I think it is a GREAT starting > > point for thinking about this. You might ask yourself "how do we tune that > > model so that we could get the price down to $X?" ... whatever you think > > your $X should be. And if you wanted to involve IBM in your discussions the > > Dallas folks might be the right place to start. > > http://dtsc.dfw.ibm.com/MVSDS/'HTTPD2.ENROL.PUBLIC.SHTML(ZOSRDP)' > > Hopefully that link works. I am not sure PDS's make the best Web > > repositories. (Gasp! Mainframe heresy!) > > Charles > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > > Behalf Of Grant Taylor > > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 10:50 AM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op > > On 7/3/20 11:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > > > > Interesting. Some questions come to mind. > > > > Discussion is good. > > > > > Would it have to have current software to attract the open source > > > community? > > > > I don't think that bleeding edge is needed in any way shape or form. > > My personal interest would be something in the z/OS family. The bottom > > end of what is still supported would be a minimum desired version. But > > I think anything in z/OS is better than was is readily available now. > > > > 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 > > -- > > 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
The RMF reports only what could be run on an assist processor without change. The assist process could be missing, busy when the work came up, was too short a segment to switch to an assist processor. It doesn't show what could be run on an assist process with a rewrite. On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:30 AM Pew, Curtis G wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2020, at 5:11 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: > > > > RMF has reports of what COULD run on assist processors and if you have > > them what DID run on assist processors. > > Right. But in our case what COULD run on zIIP was going to depend on whether > or not we could rewrite our code. > > > -- > Pew, Curtis G > curtis@austin.utexas.edu > > -- > 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
Re: Mainframe co-op
On Jul 3, 2020, at 5:11 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: > > RMF has reports of what COULD run on assist processors and if you have > them what DID run on assist processors. Right. But in our case what COULD run on zIIP was going to depend on whether or not we could rewrite our code. -- Pew, Curtis G curtis@austin.utexas.edu -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
Sounds great--BUT--as IBM Marketing idiots have done in the past..look for $$ ..instead of helping the enhancement of systems and training of new upcoming tech. people. Yes this would be a great deal in the forth coming future, but I do not see IBM Mgnt. Thinking in the lines of the future of the Company. Only self-centered people looking for early retirement and $$$. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Grant Taylor Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Mainframe co-op ** EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION ** Let's turn the mainframe access discussion on it's head. What would it take for a group of undetermined number of people to form a co-op, probably as a legal business entity, to acquire legal, completely above board, access to a mainframe (CPC / LPAR / VM) that could run z/VM with multiple z/OS guests there in? The desire is to be able to provide lower cost access to VMs similar to traditional VPSs for hobbyists and students. All legal. All licensed. All completely above board. Depending on equipment configuration, all with proper service contracts. I wonder just how high, or possibly low, the bar would be. Is it even remotely something a group of 5 / 10 / 25 / ?? hobbyists could get together and pool their resources and do? I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for z/OS for his CPC. What would it take for one of these people to legally provide other hobbyists / students access to their systems? -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
Pennies. The Toolkit is highly worth it. First Horizon Bank Mainframe Technical Support -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 6:17 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op [External Email. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.] > Years ago, in Silicon Valley, I worked on ACS/OBS WYLBUR. Would you consider looking at the Wikipedia article on Wylbur and adding some information? > Meanwhile, you must have HLASM and probably want to have the toolkit > (separately chargeable as I understand it). Yes, HLASM itself is bundled but the Toolkit is an extra charge. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of ste...@copper.net [ste...@copper.net] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 3:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op Years ago, in Silicon Valley, I worked on ACS/OBS WYLBUR. We had a P/390 that I had tuned the I/O for to really speed it up. ACS also sold time on their systems. Contractually, we were only allowed to charge access costs for the P/390. It was not to be a "production" machine. So developers could buy access to it, but not on a "per CPU time" charge and related. We did have a few takers for the P/390. The system Charles has mentioned has certain caveats and issues. One can't control their z/OS image, because the DASD for the RES is controlled by the data center. If one were to obtain a z/OS license, and were to get it to run under KVM, then one could have a "production" system, where all source is handled, compiles done, etc., while all system level testing is done on another image. There are costs with this that have to be overcome. Let's take a look into the future: IBM is going to put out a release of VM and/or z/OS that will not run on a z/?? CEC and that is the one you have (or SUSE/RHEL, etc. does the same with KVM etc.). You will now have to migrate to another machine. Can you get that machine on the used market at a good price? Meanwhile, you must have HLASM and probably want to have the toolkit (separately chargeable as I understand it). You will need all the compilers being used COBOL, PL/1, c/C++, etc.. Can you get them under a development license? Ok, let's say you can. You may need to have a small machine that is used for compiles so that you do not have to pay for the compilers on the bigger box. Given that you are going to have those who are doing development where they will need to have multiple CPUs, what you want is the slowest machine you can get (sub-model?) but with 4-6 General CPs for race condition testing. Now depending on the number of people/entities interested in this system, one may need multiple LPARs and possibly CECs to handle the workload. If I could (and because of who I work for, and for those of you who think I work for Humana, I did at one time, but things change...), I would go to a University or college and propose this: A Mainframe Academic center. And I would tie that with somehow teaching COBOL (it ain't dead, and it is still growing), and possibly CICS & DB2. If IBM still does an academic licensing thing, then this is the cheapest way to go that I am aware of. And if you can get the school to do an open semester year tuition allowing one to do self directed studies Believe me, with all the outsourced contractors I deal with who have degrees in IT Theory and absolutely no PROGRAMMING experience outside of some OO language, I could see this being something that might get some traction since with COVID-19 we just found out that we can do classes virtually to anywhere (those of us who have been working from Home for decades already knew that). And you might get certain companies to throw in their tools, such as z/XDC for a low price. Ok, maybe more than 2 cents, but these are my observations having done some of this before Outsourcing organizations became Cloud companies. THE HEADACHE not yet mentioned is, one may not be able to get support for this system. So one may have to wait until a production machine somewhere hits your problem to get an APAR/PTF. Regards, Steve Thompson --- charl...@mcn.org wrote: From: Charles Mills To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Mainframe co-op Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 11:41:52 -0700 A model to look at might be the IBM Innovation Center, Dallas. The price is higher than what I picture as your target: $550/month and up IIRC. You get two dedicated VM virtual machines: one that runs CMS and that you use as a console. You can do limited console automation with Rexx. And one on which you IPL z/OS. The z/OS -- any current version that you want -- runs from shared read-only DASD that IBM maintains: PTFs and so f
Re: Mainframe co-op
> Years ago, in Silicon Valley, I worked on ACS/OBS WYLBUR. Would you consider looking at the Wikipedia article on Wylbur and adding some information? > Meanwhile, you must have HLASM and probably want to have the toolkit > (separately chargeable as I understand it). Yes, HLASM itself is bundled but the Toolkit is an extra charge. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of ste...@copper.net [ste...@copper.net] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 3:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op Years ago, in Silicon Valley, I worked on ACS/OBS WYLBUR. We had a P/390 that I had tuned the I/O for to really speed it up. ACS also sold time on their systems. Contractually, we were only allowed to charge access costs for the P/390. It was not to be a "production" machine. So developers could buy access to it, but not on a "per CPU time" charge and related. We did have a few takers for the P/390. The system Charles has mentioned has certain caveats and issues. One can't control their z/OS image, because the DASD for the RES is controlled by the data center. If one were to obtain a z/OS license, and were to get it to run under KVM, then one could have a "production" system, where all source is handled, compiles done, etc., while all system level testing is done on another image. There are costs with this that have to be overcome. Let's take a look into the future: IBM is going to put out a release of VM and/or z/OS that will not run on a z/?? CEC and that is the one you have (or SUSE/RHEL, etc. does the same with KVM etc.). You will now have to migrate to another machine. Can you get that machine on the used market at a good price? Meanwhile, you must have HLASM and probably want to have the toolkit (separately chargeable as I understand it). You will need all the compilers being used COBOL, PL/1, c/C++, etc.. Can you get them under a development license? Ok, let's say you can. You may need to have a small machine that is used for compiles so that you do not have to pay for the compilers on the bigger box. Given that you are going to have those who are doing development where they will need to have multiple CPUs, what you want is the slowest machine you can get (sub-model?) but with 4-6 General CPs for race condition testing. Now depending on the number of people/entities interested in this system, one may need multiple LPARs and possibly CECs to handle the workload. If I could (and because of who I work for, and for those of you who think I work for Humana, I did at one time, but things change...), I would go to a University or college and propose this: A Mainframe Academic center. And I would tie that with somehow teaching COBOL (it ain't dead, and it is still growing), and possibly CICS & DB2. If IBM still does an academic licensing thing, then this is the cheapest way to go that I am aware of. And if you can get the school to do an open semester year tuition allowing one to do self directed studies Believe me, with all the outsourced contractors I deal with who have degrees in IT Theory and absolutely no PROGRAMMING experience outside of some OO language, I could see this being something that might get some traction since with COVID-19 we just found out that we can do classes virtually to anywhere (those of us who have been working from Home for decades already knew that). And you might get certain companies to throw in their tools, such as z/XDC for a low price. Ok, maybe more than 2 cents, but these are my observations having done some of this before Outsourcing organizations became Cloud companies. THE HEADACHE not yet mentioned is, one may not be able to get support for this system. So one may have to wait until a production machine somewhere hits your problem to get an APAR/PTF. Regards, Steve Thompson --- charl...@mcn.org wrote: From: Charles Mills To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Mainframe co-op Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 11:41:52 -0700 A model to look at might be the IBM Innovation Center, Dallas. The price is higher than what I picture as your target: $550/month and up IIRC. You get two dedicated VM virtual machines: one that runs CMS and that you use as a console. You can do limited console automation with Rexx. And one on which you IPL z/OS. The z/OS -- any current version that you want -- runs from shared read-only DASD that IBM maintains: PTFs and so forth are IBM's problem. You get just about every IBM product that you could possibly want -- again, read-only DASD, with IBM doing the PTFs. For $550 IIRC you get everything you "need." More DASD, lots and lots of CPU cycles, etc. entail an upcharge. You "own" the configuration. If you want to muck up SYS1.PARMLIB so that z/OS wi
Re: Mainframe co-op
RMF has reports of what COULD run on assist processors and if you have them what DID run on assist processors. On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 9:06 PM Pew, Curtis G wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Jackson, Rob wrote: > > > > I'm curious: what about adding zIIPs was challenging? > > 1. Determining what our zIIP and non-zIIP capacity needs would be. In other > words, since we didn’t have zIIPs before we weren’t sure how much of our > workload would actually run on the zIIPs. > > 2. The biggest thing was that we are an Adabas/Natural shop, so we were > hoping to run both those products zIIP-enabled. However, we have a home-grown > security system that’s implemented by several thousand lines of assembler > code that runs as a part of the Natural session, and this code was doing > things like issuing SVCs and examining the current TCB, and those things > don’t work when you’re running zIIP-enabled. So the challenge was if we could > rewrite all that code to work on zIIPs. (And see “how much of our workload > could run zIIP-enabled” above.) > > We were able to get the code rewritten, and we’ve been very happily running > Adabas and Natural zIIP-enabled ever since. > > > -- > Pew, Curtis G > curtis@austin.utexas.edu > > > > > > > -- > 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
Re: Mainframe co-op
Ahhh. Cool. That makes sense. Many thanks for the answer. And congrats; sounds like it was indeed a challenge. First Horizon Bank Mainframe Technical Support -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Pew, Curtis G Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 5:06 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op [External Email. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.] On Jul 3, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Jackson, Rob wrote: > > I'm curious: what about adding zIIPs was challenging? 1. Determining what our zIIP and non-zIIP capacity needs would be. In other words, since we didn’t have zIIPs before we weren’t sure how much of our workload would actually run on the zIIPs. 2. The biggest thing was that we are an Adabas/Natural shop, so we were hoping to run both those products zIIP-enabled. However, we have a home-grown security system that’s implemented by several thousand lines of assembler code that runs as a part of the Natural session, and this code was doing things like issuing SVCs and examining the current TCB, and those things don’t work when you’re running zIIP-enabled. So the challenge was if we could rewrite all that code to work on zIIPs. (And see “how much of our workload could run zIIP-enabled” above.) We were able to get the code rewritten, and we’ve been very happily running Adabas and Natural zIIP-enabled ever since. -- Pew, Curtis G curtis@austin.utexas.edu -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN 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: Mainframe co-op
On Jul 3, 2020, at 3:30 PM, Jackson, Rob wrote: > > I'm curious: what about adding zIIPs was challenging? 1. Determining what our zIIP and non-zIIP capacity needs would be. In other words, since we didn’t have zIIPs before we weren’t sure how much of our workload would actually run on the zIIPs. 2. The biggest thing was that we are an Adabas/Natural shop, so we were hoping to run both those products zIIP-enabled. However, we have a home-grown security system that’s implemented by several thousand lines of assembler code that runs as a part of the Natural session, and this code was doing things like issuing SVCs and examining the current TCB, and those things don’t work when you’re running zIIP-enabled. So the challenge was if we could rewrite all that code to work on zIIPs. (And see “how much of our workload could run zIIP-enabled” above.) We were able to get the code rewritten, and we’ve been very happily running Adabas and Natural zIIP-enabled ever since. -- Pew, Curtis G curtis@austin.utexas.edu -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
> One can't control their z/OS image, because the DASD for the RES is > controlled by the data center. Right, one could not apply a patch to the nucleus. It is on a R/O volume. But you have pretty good control IMHO: - SYS1.PARMLIB/PROCLIB/etc. is your own. You can do anything you want there and IPL as many times as you want. - I suspect (but have never done it) you could fiddle with concatenations and so forth and have your own writable copy of some "OS-type" things. - You can have any current version of z/OS that you want, and stay with an old version as long as you want. - I get the feeling that IBM would work with you if you said "we can't tolerate PTF XX1234 just yet -- can you hold off for us?" But I'm not here to sell Dallas on behalf of IBM. Keep it in mind if $550/month is not too rich for your blood. But I was mostly describing it to give a possible baseline for discussions of "what would a mainframe co-op look like?" Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of ste...@copper.net Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 12:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op Years ago, in Silicon Valley, I worked on ACS/OBS WYLBUR. We had a P/390 that I had tuned the I/O for to really speed it up. ACS also sold time on their systems. Contractually, we were only allowed to charge access costs for the P/390. It was not to be a "production" machine. So developers could buy access to it, but not on a "per CPU time" charge and related. We did have a few takers for the P/390. The system Charles has mentioned has certain caveats and issues. One can't control their z/OS image, because the DASD for the RES is controlled by the data center. If one were to obtain a z/OS license, and were to get it to run under KVM, then one could have a "production" system, where all source is handled, compiles done, etc., while all system level testing is done on another image. There are costs with this that have to be overcome. Let's take a look into the future: IBM is going to put out a release of VM and/or z/OS that will not run on a z/?? CEC and that is the one you have (or SUSE/RHEL, etc. does the same with KVM etc.). You will now have to migrate to another machine. Can you get that machine on the used market at a good price? Meanwhile, you must have HLASM and probably want to have the toolkit (separately chargeable as I understand it). You will need all the compilers being used COBOL, PL/1, c/C++, etc.. Can you get them under a development license? Ok, let's say you can. You may need to have a small machine that is used for compiles so that you do not have to pay for the compilers on the bigger box. Given that you are going to have those who are doing development where they will need to have multiple CPUs, what you want is the slowest machine you can get (sub-model?) but with 4-6 General CPs for race condition testing. Now depending on the number of people/entities interested in this system, one may need multiple LPARs and possibly CECs to handle the workload. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
COBOL growing? was Re: Mainframe co-op
veloping a "mainframe product" but my impression is that >IBM's bar is pretty low: you don't have to be BMC or CA. > >You might consider using that as a model. I think it is a GREAT starting point >for thinking about this. You might ask yourself "how do we tune that model so >that we could get the price down to $X?" ... whatever you think your $X should >be. And if you wanted to involve IBM in your discussions the Dallas folks >might be the right place to start. > >http://dtsc.dfw.ibm.com/MVSDS/'HTTPD2.ENROL.PUBLIC.SHTML(ZOSRDP)' > >Hopefully that link works. I am not sure PDS's make the best Web repositories. >(Gasp! Mainframe heresy!) > >Charles > > >-Original Message- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On >Behalf Of Grant Taylor >Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 10:50 AM >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op > >On 7/3/20 11:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> Interesting. Some questions come to mind. > >Discussion is good. > >> Would it have to have current software to attract the open source >> community? > >I don't think that bleeding edge is needed in any way shape or form. > >My personal interest would be something in the z/OS family. The bottom >end of what is still supported would be a minimum desired version. But >I think anything in z/OS is better than was is readily available now. > >-- >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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
I'm curious: what about adding zIIPs was challenging? First Horizon Bank Mainframe Technical Support -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Pew, Curtis G Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 3:40 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op [External Email. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.] On Jul 3, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > > Ah, software cost. I still remember the first CPU upgrade after the > insinuation of tiered pricing. We budgeted for the hardware and extracted > approval from management. Then we were bowled over when the software bills > rolled in. Of course it was our fault for not considering the budget busting > impact of increased MIPS. Not sure IBM thought it through. We now refrain > from hardware upgrades because of software costs. I just gave a presentation to our user community about the z10 BC → z14 ZR1 upgrade we did last August. One of the most challenging things about this upgrade was our z14 has zIIPs, which we didn’t have before. But try explaining zIIPs and CP capacity levels, or processor characterization in general! Those are totally irrational, except in the context of how mainframe software is priced. -- Pew, Curtis G curtis@austin.utexas.edu -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN 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: Mainframe co-op
I think _I_ know the answer to the big question for IBM on Z. I do suspect it's incompatible with their culture. I think they're bound and determined to run the platform into the ground. I would gladly volunteer my free time to admin a public platform and support users; I doubt I am alone. I grew up in the UNIX/Windoze world. This platform is superior. I would that it will continue. First Horizon Bank Mainframe Technical Support -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 1:22 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op [External Email. Exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments.] On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:18:13AM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote: [...] > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS > 3.8j, which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, > and backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any > prerequisites. > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 > years ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a > moment where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of > these creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. Perhaps this kind of spirit is not compitible with spirit of IBM? Perhaps one not only needs to imagine what could have happened, but also why something does not happen / have not happened? No, I do not have the answers. I think a good question is worth a thousand answers, perhaps. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN 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: Mainframe co-op
nt to muck up SYS1.PARMLIB so that z/OS > will not IPL, it's your gun, your bullet, your foot. I have never done it, so > I don't know, but I would assume IBM has some way of getting you back > running. You "own" RACF. You can have as many userid's as you care to define. > If you want to experiment with permissions in any way you choose, go at it. > IBM provides very limited support: (1) if you need help you can ask by > e-mail: sometimes you get great help, sometimes not; (2) no PMR support. You > are not a z/OS licensee and thus not entitled to PMR support. I would assume > that if you had some fatal problem you could go route (1) and get IBM to > address it somehow: I have no experience. > > It is a good option for an individual or small company just a little above > your intended price point. You have to a certain extent the best of both > worlds: you have a z/OS that you can do with as you wish just as if you owned > the box; and you have IBM doing the z/OS PTFs and basic installs and volume > backups and so forth that I at least don't care to do. You do not have to do > any initial install: your z/OS will IPL on day one. > > It is current hardware. I believe we are currently running on a z14. > > There are also offerings for VM, VSE and Linux IIRC but I am not familiar > with them. > > You cannot do "production." You can let customers on for demos, but that is > it. (Speaking from memory; I am not an IBM attorney.) You have to be a > "software vendor" developing a "mainframe product" but my impression is that > IBM's bar is pretty low: you don't have to be BMC or CA. > > You might consider using that as a model. I think it is a GREAT starting > point for thinking about this. You might ask yourself "how do we tune that > model so that we could get the price down to $X?" ... whatever you think your > $X should be. And if you wanted to involve IBM in your discussions the Dallas > folks might be the right place to start. > > http://dtsc.dfw.ibm.com/MVSDS/'HTTPD2.ENROL.PUBLIC.SHTML(ZOSRDP)' > > Hopefully that link works. I am not sure PDS's make the best Web > repositories. (Gasp! Mainframe heresy!) > > Charles > > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Grant Taylor > Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 10:50 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op > > On 7/3/20 11:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Interesting. Some questions come to mind. > > Discussion is good. > > > Would it have to have current software to attract the open source > > community? > > I don't think that bleeding edge is needed in any way shape or form. > > My personal interest would be something in the z/OS family. The bottom > end of what is still supported would be a minimum desired version. But > I think anything in z/OS is better than was is readily available now. > > -- > 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 -- 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: Mainframe co-op
On Jul 3, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote: > > Ah, software cost. I still remember the first CPU upgrade after the > insinuation of tiered pricing. We budgeted for the hardware and extracted > approval from management. Then we were bowled over when the software bills > rolled in. Of course it was our fault for not considering the budget busting > impact of increased MIPS. Not sure IBM thought it through. We now refrain > from hardware upgrades because of software costs. I just gave a presentation to our user community about the z10 BC → z14 ZR1 upgrade we did last August. One of the most challenging things about this upgrade was our z14 has zIIPs, which we didn’t have before. But try explaining zIIPs and CP capacity levels, or processor characterization in general! Those are totally irrational, except in the context of how mainframe software is priced. -- Pew, Curtis G curtis@austin.utexas.edu -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
Ah, software cost. I still remember the first CPU upgrade after the insinuation of tiered pricing. We budgeted for the hardware and extracted approval from management. Then we were bowled over when the software bills rolled in. Of course it was our fault for not considering the budget busting impact of increased MIPS. Not sure IBM thought it through. We now refrain from hardware upgrades because of software costs. . . 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 On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 11:37 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: (External):Re: Mainframe co-op CAUTION EXTERNAL EMAIL My management decided against it, but a couple years ago, a new low tier z13 and more than enough DASD for us would have been around $400K or so. Unfortunately, the z/OS licensing was sill more than twice this. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Grant Taylor > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op > > On 7/3/20 11:52 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > I have think more or less along the same lines Grant., since I have > > retired > > Will you please elaborate on what you think and why you think it. > > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
erience. It is a good option for an individual or small company just a little above your intended price point. You have to a certain extent the best of both worlds: you have a z/OS that you can do with as you wish just as if you owned the box; and you have IBM doing the z/OS PTFs and basic installs and volume backups and so forth that I at least don't care to do. You do not have to do any initial install: your z/OS will IPL on day one. It is current hardware. I believe we are currently running on a z14. There are also offerings for VM, VSE and Linux IIRC but I am not familiar with them. You cannot do "production." You can let customers on for demos, but that is it. (Speaking from memory; I am not an IBM attorney.) You have to be a "software vendor" developing a "mainframe product" but my impression is that IBM's bar is pretty low: you don't have to be BMC or CA. You might consider using that as a model. I think it is a GREAT starting point for thinking about this. You might ask yourself "how do we tune that model so that we could get the price down to $X?" ... whatever you think your $X should be. And if you wanted to involve IBM in your discussions the Dallas folks might be the right place to start. http://dtsc.dfw.ibm.com/MVSDS/'HTTPD2.ENROL.PUBLIC.SHTML(ZOSRDP)' Hopefully that link works. I am not sure PDS's make the best Web repositories. (Gasp! Mainframe heresy!) Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Taylor Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 10:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op On 7/3/20 11:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Interesting. Some questions come to mind. Discussion is good. > Would it have to have current software to attract the open source > community? I don't think that bleeding edge is needed in any way shape or form. My personal interest would be something in the z/OS family. The bottom end of what is still supported would be a minimum desired version. But I think anything in z/OS is better than was is readily available now. -- 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: Mainframe co-op
A model to look at might be the IBM Innovation Center, Dallas. The price is higher than what I picture as your target: $550/month and up IIRC. You get two dedicated VM virtual machines: one that runs CMS and that you use as a console. You can do limited console automation with Rexx. And one on which you IPL z/OS. The z/OS -- any current version that you want -- runs from shared read-only DASD that IBM maintains: PTFs and so forth are IBM's problem. You get just about every IBM product that you could possibly want -- again, read-only DASD, with IBM doing the PTFs. For $550 IIRC you get everything you "need." More DASD, lots and lots of CPU cycles, etc. entail an upcharge. You "own" the configuration. If you want to muck up SYS1.PARMLIB so that z/OS will not IPL, it's your gun, your bullet, your foot. I have never done it, so I don't know, but I would assume IBM has some way of getting you back running. You "own" RACF. You can have as many userid's as you care to define. If you want to experiment with permissions in any way you choose, go at it. IBM provides very limited support: (1) if you need help you can ask by e-mail: sometimes you get great help, sometimes not; (2) no PMR support. You are not a z/OS licensee and thus not entitled to PMR support. I would assume that if you had some fatal problem you could go route (1) and get IBM to address it somehow: I have no experience. It is a good option for an individual or small company just a little above your intended price point. You have to a certain extent the best of both worlds: you have a z/OS that you can do with as you wish just as if you owned the box; and you have IBM doing the z/OS PTFs and basic installs and volume backups and so forth that I at least don't care to do. You do not have to do any initial install: your z/OS will IPL on day one. It is current hardware. I believe we are currently running on a z14. There are also offerings for VM, VSE and Linux IIRC but I am not familiar with them. You cannot do "production." You can let customers on for demos, but that is it. (Speaking from memory; I am not an IBM attorney.) You have to be a "software vendor" developing a "mainframe product" but my impression is that IBM's bar is pretty low: you don't have to be BMC or CA. You might consider using that as a model. I think it is a GREAT starting point for thinking about this. You might ask yourself "how do we tune that model so that we could get the price down to $X?" ... whatever you think your $X should be. And if you wanted to involve IBM in your discussions the Dallas folks might be the right place to start. http://dtsc.dfw.ibm.com/MVSDS/'HTTPD2.ENROL.PUBLIC.SHTML(ZOSRDP)' Hopefully that link works. I am not sure PDS's make the best Web repositories. (Gasp! Mainframe heresy!) Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Grant Taylor Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 10:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op On 7/3/20 11:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > Interesting. Some questions come to mind. Discussion is good. > Would it have to have current software to attract the open source > community? I don't think that bleeding edge is needed in any way shape or form. My personal interest would be something in the z/OS family. The bottom end of what is still supported would be a minimum desired version. But I think anything in z/OS is better than was is readily available now. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
My management decided against it, but a couple years ago, a new low tier z13 and more than enough DASD for us would have been around $400K or so. Unfortunately, the z/OS licensing was sill more than twice this. > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Grant Taylor > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Mainframe co-op > > On 7/3/20 11:52 AM, scott Ford wrote: > > I have think more or less along the same lines Grant., since I have retired > > Will you please elaborate on what you think and why you think it. > > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die > > -- > 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: Mainframe co-op
On 7/3/20 11:52 AM, scott Ford wrote: I have think more or less along the same lines Grant., since I have retired Will you please elaborate on what you think and why you think it. -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
I have think more or less along the same lines Grant., since I have retired .. Scott On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 1:22 PM Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:18:13AM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote: > [...] > > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS > > 3.8j, which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites > > therefor, and backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any > > prerequisites. > > > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 > > years ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for > > a moment where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some > > of these creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. > > Perhaps this kind of spirit is not compitible with spirit of IBM? > > Perhaps one not only needs to imagine what could have happened, but > also why something does not happen / have not happened? > > No, I do not have the answers. I think a good question is worth a > thousand answers, perhaps. > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Scott Ford IDMWORKS z/OS Development -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
On 7/3/20 11:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: Interesting. Some questions come to mind. Discussion is good. Would it have to have current software to attract the open source community? I don't think that bleeding edge is needed in any way shape or form. My personal interest would be something in the z/OS family. The bottom end of what is still supported would be a minimum desired version. But I think anything in z/OS is better than was is readily available now. What sort of support would be available from IBM and from volunteers? I would not assume any support from IBM for things like PMRs. Though I suppose that is a possible option. I would think that much of the support would come from the community. Would IBM partially subsidize it if you could show that it would expand the market? I have no idea. I would not count on any such support to get started. As such, any support from IBM would be icing on the cake. How would you make it known to the open source community? I don't know. I would think that members commenting about it on various social media channels would be a good start. It would probably need it's own mailing list and / or discussion channels. Would it be involved with the Academic community and would it coordinate with IBM academic programs? I don't object to such. But I don't want it to be beholden to such either. Would it include a repository or would it rely on, e.g., Bitbucket, GitLab, Phabricator, SourceForge? I think it would behoove the project for it to offer it's own repositories and similar services; mailing list, chat, etc. The idea being to avoid external dependency. That being said, I don't see any reason that members couldn't choose to use their own external repository, etc. What sort of infrastructure would it need? Listserv? Online courses? I see the current desired things: - repository - web page - mailing list(s) - I really like Mailman's ability to do topic based mailing lists. Subscribe, pick your topic(s), etc. - chat would be nice - irc - slack - other Ironically, I think all of these could be hosted on the mainframe itself. Possibly Linux on z. I would like to see options for people to connect their guest VM to the fledgling HECnet that Moshix is touting. I think these types of activities allow people to grow and learn in atypical areas. Want to play with DASD replication? Sure. -- I naively assume that something could be set up under z/VM to allow a z/OS guest to play with multiple DASDs to test and learn about a concept. Want to play with IPL parameters, go ahead. Want to play with HCD, yep, you can do that too. -- I naively assume that IOCDS / HCD is still a thing in a z/OS guest VM. Would user assistance be free, chargeable or multi-tiered, with simple questions and bug reporting being free? All very good questions. I would hope that there is some free best effort much like the existing community. I would be happy to see some professional / consultation services available much people can hire a tutor for many different subjects. I would expect those arrangements to be between the guest VM subscriber and the ""tutor. I would want to avoid this overarching co-op from being a profit center. The purpose is to make things accessible and as affordable as reasonably possible to do so. I chose "co-op" on purpose. At least based on my understanding of the term. I would want to put things in place to prevent people from abusing services and / or using guest VMs to enable them to make a profit by hosting line of business applications. I don't know if this is even possible or not. But perhaps put a resource quota that only allows the guest VM to be active 20-25 days a month. You pick when it's convenient for your guest VM to be shut down. But hopefully that would prevent businesses from abusing it for production. This is also where the low MIPS comes into play. Enough for a single user to do some small things on top of whatever the guest OS needs. I'm sure that there are lot's of issues that I've overlooked, but if this goes anywhere I expect that others will think of them. I hope that it actually takes off. I do too. I'd love to learn more. I'd love to subscribe to such a system. -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 10:18:13AM -0600, Grant Taylor wrote: [...] > There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS > 3.8j, which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites > therefor, and backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any > prerequisites. > > This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 > years ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for > a moment where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some > of these creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. Perhaps this kind of spirit is not compitible with spirit of IBM? Perhaps one not only needs to imagine what could have happened, but also why something does not happen / have not happened? No, I do not have the answers. I think a good question is worth a thousand answers, perhaps. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Mainframe co-op
Interesting. Some questions come to mind. Would it have to have current software to attract the open source community? What sort of support would be available from IBM and from volunteers? Would IBM partially subsidize it if you could show that it would expand the market? How would you make it known to the open source community? Would it be involved with the Academic community and would it coordinate with IBM academic programs? Would it include a repository or would it rely on, e.g., Bitbucket, GitLab, Phabricator, SourceForge? What sort of infrastructure would it need? Listserv? Online courses? Would user assistance be free, chargeable or multi-tiered, with simple questions and bug reporting being free? I'm sure that there are lot's of issues that I've overlooked, but if this goes anywhere I expect that others will think of them. I hope that it actually takes off. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Grant Taylor [023065957af1-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 12:12 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Mainframe co-op Let's turn the mainframe access discussion on it's head. What would it take for a group of undetermined number of people to form a co-op, probably as a legal business entity, to acquire legal, completely above board, access to a mainframe (CPC / LPAR / VM) that could run z/VM with multiple z/OS guests there in? The desire is to be able to provide lower cost access to VMs similar to traditional VPSs for hobbyists and students. All legal. All licensed. All completely above board. Depending on equipment configuration, all with proper service contracts. I wonder just how high, or possibly low, the bar would be. Is it even remotely something a group of 5 / 10 / 25 / ?? hobbyists could get together and pool their resources and do? I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for z/OS for his CPC. What would it take for one of these people to legally provide other hobbyists / students access to their systems? -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- 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: Mainframe co-op
On 7/3/20 10:12 AM, Grant Taylor wrote: I know multiple people that have CPCs. But they don't currently have DASD. I think at least one of them has a line on legal licenses for z/OS for his CPC. One of the people I know is developing his own FICON connected DASD by reading any and all documents he can get his hands on. What do we, as the mainframe community, and IBM, as the big name, need to do to encourage these extremely creative, resourceful, and driven people better access to a functioning mainframe so that they can use their creative talents and drive to help further the mainframe? There are a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts that have taken MVS 3.8j, which decidedly does not include REXX or prerequisites therefor, and backported (?) REXX to it, including re-creating any prerequisites. This is the creative and enthusiastic spirit that created Unix 50 years ago and helped Linux become what it is today. Just think for a moment where the mainframe could be in 10 or 20 years if even some of these creative efforts were directed at enhancing the mainframe. -- Grant. . . . unix || die -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
