Mark Post wrote: > It's more symptomatic of not having access to a suitable development > environment. I recently pointed one of their developers to Marist > College. I'm pretty sure he'll be met with open arms, as have many of > us working on System z-related Open Source projects. Also, you're > assuming that the CentOS developers that had been working on the > System z port were "mainframers." Not really. Contrary to what a lot > of people believe, there is some interest in mainframes from people > that don't come from a long time mainframe background. The Slack/390 > port, for example, was started by myself and an undergraduate student > at Marist College. While I do have a long term mainframe background, > Mike Kershaw certainly did not. He was not the only one by any means. and that's why I really wish IBM would come out with a "hobbyist" license for stuff like z/OS ... so I can load it on my PC and do development work without having to ask for permission from the bosses because it would be my time on my machine.
places like Marist makes sense for people with a purpose. I'm a true hobbyist ... no real intent to build something and can't commit to a schedule ... just want to tinker and figure out how it works ... and if I come up with something useful, then that would be great. right now, the only place I can afford to play is Linux on Intel. >>> but our management has decreed that all future development will be >>> Solaris/SPARC or Linux/Intel. >>> >> Why no Solaris/Intel option? >> > > I would go so far as to say, why no Open Solaris for System z option? (Of > course "myopia" is the most likely answer, but rhetorical questions being > what they are....) > > not really myopia ... more like "tunnel vision" ... --Stephen ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
