I think the numbers would need one more delineation. My understanding is that TS is also in a lot of z/VSE. Which changes the results for the question "how many mainframe installations of TS are there?" Of course if you add in z/VM, it might change things again.
I was under the impression that the numbers for z/OS were 1) RACF 2) ACF/2 3) TSS But for the numbers of mainframes it was 1) RACF 2) TSS 3) ACF/2 Of course the results of the numbers of mainframes are going to have some companies double or triple dipping even within a single mainframe footprint. Maybe a more interesting number would have rated MIPS, number of LPARs and number of users by operating system. And it wouldn't be complete without the developers numbers as well. But as for real numbers.. can't really help. Rob Schramm On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:22 PM Tony Harminc <t...@harminc.net> wrote: > On 9 September 2015 at 09:47, Steve Harner <booksr...@verizon.net> wrote: > > I am interested in determining/clarifying what the current market share > breakdown is for EACH of the three > > z/OS ESM products: RACF, CA-ACF2 and CA-Top Secret. > > Only IBM is in a position to truly know the market share, because only > they know exactly how many z/OS systems are out there. CA of course > knows how many ACF2 and TSS shops there are, but IBM also knows that > with almost perfect accuracy both because they know who is paying for > z/OS but not RACF, and because they see dumps and logs and such from > essentially every customer, which will also tell them. I doubt either > IBM or CA is talking on these numbers, though. In the absense of their > comments, I'd trust Barry's remarks. > > Based on the much smaller number of z/OS customers that I (as an ISV > employee) see problem tickets from, I would guess the ratio to be > roughly 80/10/10. Certainly neither ACF2 nor TSS is going away any > time soon; both are good products that are kept current, and all three > products offer unique features not available in the others. Because of > the nature of our software, we have to explicitly support all three in > code and doc, but I doubt that any would-be ISV or vendor of > consulting services in the z/OS market can afford to not support any > of them at least in install and use doc, even if the product uses only > standard SAF services. > > As for conversions, clearly the trend is to RACF, but we've seen > oddities like a large ACF2 customer that converted to RACF and was > then almost immediately acquired by another company using ACF2, and > converted back. I have yet to encounter a customer with all three > products in the same datacentre, though I don't doubt that they exist > as the result of M&A activity. > > Tony H. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
