As several other people have pointed out, the ADCD systems are mainly used by software vendors, mostly for zPDT systems, but sometimes others. And many of us HAVE to support old software: we still have customers that have not migrated for one reason or another.
I agree that ADCD as delivered is not the best, but most of us do NOT worry about audits because we are not using these systems for production just for development and customer support. In fact, that is how the IBM contract for ADCD reads for us: the systems can only be used in development and support. Lloyd ----- Original Message ---- From: ibmmain <nitz-...@gmx.net> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Thu, January 3, 2013 12:38:36 PM Subject: Re: RACF on an ADCD system > And the DB2s are separately down-loadable from IBM-Dallas. So you can have > DB2 > > V8 on 1.13. I agree that ADCD does not come with it directly, but it is > available. So basically what y'all are saying is that this rubbish is nice to have. I disagree, especially for remnants of userids that don't exist anymore. In my opinion, if someone wants to add outdated software (even if it is still supported) to their system, they better know how to set it up properly. We will certainly not run several DB2s or CICSs or WASs or IMSs, only the latest, if any. What I didn't mention was that I basically eliminated every activated IMS class, all classes dealing with Websphere and z/OSMF plus a few others. If we will run this sometime in the future, I'll be reading the books on how to set this up rather than deal with obsolete definitions that may or may not have an impact on something else. These ADCD systems are not set up for migration from one z/OS release to another at all, so data transfer from one system to the next appears to be a must. I understand that the ADCD comes with two releases of each (and I don't think we were missing volumes). I am also aware of the different load parms (one of the first things I checked). It is even mentioned on that website I cited (which is the only documentation I have for an ADCD system). >the ADCD has evolved over the years it hasn't been cleaned up properly and the >team that build it is quite small That's what I figured. An overworked, too small group that cannot keep up with the demands, so they do the best they can. Which falls far flat of IBMs propagated 'best practises'. As far as RACF is concerned, an ADCD system would never survive an audit, even with mild auditors. Barbara ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
