Yeah I think our numbers are larger on RACF and yes we have some large TSS shops as well as RACF
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Rob Schramm <rob.schr...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > On 9 September 2015 at 09:47, Steve Harner <booksr...@verizon.net > <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;> with the message: > INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu <javascript:;> 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
