> surely only the largest players need Z.
When should Google have moved its 5,500,000 servers to z? A mechanic only need
2 tools. A hammer when something should move but won't and duct tape when it
moves but shouldn't. Medium players should be using z servers. One IBM z16 can
have 2,500 PCIe slots compared to the 8 that the biggest non-IBM motherboards.
If Linux were efficient, then more than 8 PCIe slots would be needed.
Manufacturers would build it if there were demand. Surely Google alone with
5,500,000 servers would make it profitable.
> although Amazon, E-Bay, Microsoft Cloud Services seem to manage without it....
What alternative do these companies have? Their employees refuse to become z/OS
programmers where they don't have control over security, optimization and every
other aspect of the computer. They feel it's better to use Big-O instead of
relying on Intune to identify program bottlenecks. IBM programmers are business
experts whereas Linux programmers are computer experts proud of the tools they
use and build.
> Did they really "move" TCP/IP & UNIX?
If it came from VM, then why did use USS dubbing and a USS RACF segment?
TCP/IP 3.1 was from BSD Unix and it was very apparent. 3.2 was better but the
3.4 rework made a world of difference.
As for USS, the wiki you mentioned says "not be derived from the AT&T source
code". USS was derived from something which I think was BSD. Some of the
kernel would be rewritten but there is a lot of code they wouldn't rewrite and
obtained from somewhere. The kernel is a small part of what we think of as Unix
and many parts were retained. Shells, script and more was carried over from
somewhere.
>> I think IBM wants to integrate z/OS products to retain their investments and
>> expand their customer base..
> Why do that. It would result in a huge loss of hardware revenue.
> IFLs for running UNIX are much cheaper than the CPUs needed to run z/OS.
IFL's are discounted because Linux runs poorly on z16. Every CPU in a z16 is
the same so IBM will never discount an entire z16 just for Linux. Linux
customers don't want z/OS so z16 is not an option for Linux only customers. If
IBM wants to increase the z16 market share, they must make RHEL perform as well
as z/OS and charge full price for CPUs.
IBM has a huge investment in z/OS software that if compatible with RHEL would
bring in the same revenues as z/OS.
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 02:03:10 AM PDT, dave.g4...@gmail.com
<dave.g4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> On Behalf Of Jon Perryman
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:47 AM
> To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Will z/OS be obsolete in 5 years?
>
> IBM RHEL announced it's move to closed source (IBM RedHat Enterprise Linux).
> With some changes, DB2, RACF and other z/OS products could run in Linux on
> z16 in one sysplexed Linux image.
A heck of a lot of changes, for a start z/OS is EBCDIC and Linux is some modern
descendant of ASCII ...
... and if they ran on Linux on Z than why won't they run on Linux on some
other platform, surely only the largest players need Z..
.. although Amazon, E-Bay, Microsoft Cloud Services seem to manage without
it....
> We know it's possible because IBM moved
> Unix and TCP into z/OS.
Did they really "move" TCP/IP & UNIX?
The original TCP/IP in MVS came from VM and was written in PASCAL so not UNIX
based.
>From what I remember USS was written from scratch. The entry in Wikipedia
>seems to confirm this, it says :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Services
" ... It is the first UNIX 95 to not be derived from the AT&T source code. "
So freshly created, not moved ....
> IBM RHEL said closed source would force non-paying
> customers to buy RHEL licenses but this makes no sense.
As a statement, it makes perfect sense. If all else is equal it means they will
receive money for something they don't at present.
> Something else must be in play.
Ah, a conspiracy theory. Of course other things are in play, but I believe they
are more about protecting the image that "z" is different, in a good way to
other platforms than moving zOS to Linux.
In fact moving components from z/OS into Linux would, I believe devalue them
and reduce their USPs....
> I created a survey at https://forms.gle/ZTPXsDJo8Z4H93sv7 to gain insights
> into
> IBM's decision to close source RHEL. You can skip the survey if you don't
> want to
> take it and view the survey results through this website. Feel free to pass
> this
> along.
> I think IBM wants to integrate z/OS products to retain their investments and
> expand their customer base..
Why do that. It would result in a huge loss of hardware revenue. IFLs for
running UNIX are much cheaper than the CPUs needed to run z/OS.
> Why is the z/OS community ignoring IBM RHEL closed source?
Because its not relevant.? Is it ignoring it?
> Are software vendors preparing their products for Linux?
I assume that those that are relevant already have, but for any that were using
free RHEL on Z to develop will now face extra charges.
Will their prices go up?
Will they exit the Z market.
... one last point, my question would be, is this likely to back-fire on IBM?
Will it deter any one in a University or Academia from buying Z if they have to
pay, or will IBM offer them a discount of 100%?
Dave
