You are quite right that they have made their choice, but, as I say,
it is immaterial which path they choose. M$ Office cannot continue to
dominate that market when there are serious, inter-operable products
available with a totally Free license at no cost. Especially with
everybody looking to
Erik, enterprises don't care about most of what you are discussing. What
they do care about is what Marcy said: support. Until ISV support is
there for OpenSolaris on System z, OpenSolaris will have limited growth
and Linux will continue to expand. After that, technical merits may
contribute more
IN our organization (for now) we support z/vm and the linux group supports
linux.
Lionel B. Dyck, Consultant/Specialist
?Never attribute to malice what can be caused by miscommunication.?
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,
you are prohibited from
My company has two VM sysprogs for the TPF development environment. I
support the VM systems that run zLinux (4).
Betsie
-Original Message-
From: Linux on 390 Port [mailto:linux-...@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of
Ross Johnson
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:48 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
The z/VM group here has historically handled zLinux. With the dramatic
expansion of zLinux, we have changed that to the z/VM group handling zLinux
engineering, with the distributed SA groups taking on the day to day zLinux
administration.
Aaron Graves
SVP Citi Architecture and Technology
On 3/23/09 11:46 PM, Shane Ginnane sginn...@isi.com.au wrote:
Interesting, but requires Xen or KVM to work in current form, and relies
on
being able to just pass through instructions to the base hardware for
things
that don't require privileged ops.
I don't see that as an intrinsic
On 3/23/2009 at 11:46 PM, Shane Ginnane sginn...@isi.com.au wrote:
-snip-
No doubt Mark is correct re the usability of the z KVM at present, but one
would imagine that has to improve.
I wasn't speaking about KVM on any particular architecture. It's a nightmare
for everyone. If Xen is any
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:31:39 -0600
Mark Post mp...@novell.com wrote:
On 3/23/2009 at 11:46 PM, Shane Ginnane sginn...@isi.com.au wrote:
-snip-
No doubt Mark is correct re the usability of the z KVM at present, but one
would imagine that has to improve.
I wasn't speaking about KVM on any
I haven't gotten a response, but I've been doing more research, and I've
managed to come up with more questions.
First off, I know what an LPAR is, but what benefits are provided by VM that
make it preferable over LPAR's? I would guess that VM can share resources
more efficiently, but from what
Hugo,
The trick does QEMU (http://www.nongnu.org/qemu/). All other virtualisation
options that are currently available do not provide you with X86
architecture on z/Series.
I tried Windows 2003 Server to install and this was working. Depending on
which z/Series machine you have, the emulation is
snip
First off, I know what an LPAR is, but what benefits are provided by VM
that make it preferable over LPAR's? I would guess that VM can share
resources more efficiently, but from what I'm reading, LPAR's are
supposed to be able to dynamically share resources as well? I'm sure
there must be a
Hi Guys,
Well, recently a vulnerability of Cache memory in Intel Chip was
published.
Sorry by off-topic message, but I think it is worth reading.
Regards,
Intel Chip Vulnerability Could Lead to Stealthy Rootkits
By Brian Prince
2009-03-20
Security researchers have turned the spotlight on
On 3/24/09 6:49 PM, Fernando Gieseler f...@br.ibm.com wrote:
Well, recently a vulnerability of Cache memory in Intel Chip was
published.
Sorry by off-topic message, but I think it is worth reading.
I would agree. There's an excellent analysis of these two papers in this
months IEEE Spectrum.
Guys,
The paper described in the article is avaliable in
http://invisiblethingslab.com/resources/misc09/smm_cache_fun.pdf
Regards,
Fernando Gieseler
_
Technical Sales Specialist for System z
- Linux and z/VM -
IBM Brasil
fone: +55-51-2131-5848
cel:
Andrew Wiley wrote:
Secondly, if I couldn't get VM with the mainframe (which is looking pretty
likely), would it be better to run separate LPAR's of linux, a single LPAR
of linux with linux-vserver (http://linux-vserver.org/), or a combination of
both?
That would need some testing:
Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:31:39 -0600
Mark Post mp...@novell.com wrote:
On 3/23/2009 at 11:46 PM, Shane Ginnane sginn...@isi.com.au wrote:
-snip-
No doubt Mark is correct re the usability of the z KVM at present, but one
would imagine that has to improve.
I wasn't speaking
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:21 PM, John Summerfield
deb...@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Andrew Wiley wrote:
Secondly, if I couldn't get VM with the mainframe (which is looking pretty
likely), would it be better to run separate LPAR's of linux, a single LPAR
of linux with linux-vserver
Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 7:21 PM, John Summerfield
deb...@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Andrew Wiley wrote:
Secondly, if I couldn't get VM with the mainframe (which is looking pretty
likely), would it be better to run separate LPAR's of linux, a single LPAR
of linux with
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:23 PM, John Summerfield
deb...@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Andrew Wiley wrote:
Some questions:
1. How many users do you anticipate?
I know that I expect to run, at most, about 20 VM's. That number may rise
in
the coming years, but I doubt it will ever get
Andrew Wiley wrote:
There's also the benefit of exposing students to the idea that mainframes
are still alive and useful (most textbooks these days cite mainframes as an
example of obselete technology that existed before PC's, unfortunately),
and, if possible, it would let me offer mainframe
20 matches
Mail list logo
