Hi John, System z is not cheap (does it start around $1M?). I expect the traditional mainframe operating systems, like z/OS, z/VM, etc., to have a significant price tag. I'm not sure what the pricing is for the zLinux variety of operating system. Free does not get you business class support. Add to that the environment, DASD, etc., it's hard for the startup vendor to put all that in his garage :-)
It seems like they are trying to prevent the creation of smaller more affordable "mainframes". What happened to P/390, FLEX-ES? Is there any way to legally run z/OS on Hercules? If a small vendor needs coupling facilities, I think he is out of luck. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of John McKown > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:42 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: mainframe "selling" points > > I am not sure, but the PC in impinging on the z in many ways. IMO, one > reason is that some very creative people can afford their own PC and > tools (especially if they use Linux). The investment is very low > compared to a z. And the "vendor" can then market the product to many > more people. Most every office in the world has PC class servers. Take > the EMR package. If it is priced correctly and easy to use, then the > market into local doctor's offices is immense compared to, say, only > into a major hospital (which could possibly afford a z). I know my > personal doctor has some sort of PC based software. I see them (and my > dentist) using it. And the doctor no longer writes physical > prescriptions. He just enters it into his laptop; it then ends up > going to my pharmacy; and they send a text to my phone when it is > ready to pick up. I really don't see much of any reason for > "application level" code on the z any more. Things like DB2, maybe. > But CICS? Sorry, it is simply easier to create a "web" based > transaction using WAS or JBOSS or Tomcat on a server. Doing so is more > cost efficient for our size (and shrinking) business. The only reason > we continue with CICS/COBOL is that we do incremental changes. We > don't have the money to convert from CICS or batch COBOL to something > else (likely Microsoft .NET based <shudder/>). > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Don Williams <donb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > In my company's case, it's not a matter of asking our vendor to work > with > > IBM. The vendor already works with IBM, but has chosen to phase out > their > > mainframe product and create a new one that runs on PC-based servers. > For > > various reasons, the hospital decided to open the field and look for > a new > > Electronic Medical Record (EMR) package across all platforms. My > > understanding is that there is no viable EMR package available on the > z/OS > > platform. This made me wonder -- is there no EMR vendor who chose to > > develop their product on the z/OS platform? I expect that successful > > vendors carefully chose their platform(s). If they are not chosing > z/OS, > > why not? > > -- > Maranatha! <>< > John McKown > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
