On Friday, 05/04/2007 at 10:45 EST, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> And how many time have we told you *not* to use big words like
> "hyperbole" or sophisticated literary devices like similes and
> metaphors; you're dealing with VM-ers here, after all......;-)
Erudite VMers, of course. Erudite. ;-)
> While IBM Endicott may have been committed to CMS for 40 years, the rest
> of IBM certainly has not followed suit. The decision to move away from
> OfficeVison to Notes by IBM certainly did not give the VM base the warm
> fuzzies, among the other things IBM has done over the years to, if not
> kill BVM of explicitly, at least deemphasis it considerably. These
> actions are noted by both the end users and the ISVs when they start
> making new product development plans and allocating software budgets.
But, you know, IBM Corporation never killed off VM. In spite of various
attempts by various parts of the company to do so, the people who
ultimately make those decisions said (quoting Julia Roberts) "Tempting,
but no".
Yes, we moved many of our most treasured apps off of CMS, but I firmly
believe those were sound business decisions. Annoying as all get out
[oops..midwestern slang..sorry], sure, but the right thing to do. As far
as OV was concerned, it was a casualty of the larger "Office Wars" that
include e-mail, calendaring, collaboration, business process integration,
business intelligence, and data warehousing.
I do miss its simplicity....I don't miss the lack of a clustering HA
solution or the inability to manage my calendar when not connected to the
network. (sigh)
Credit where credit is due: IBM's lack of understanding [unwillingness to
listen?] about how personal computing would imact departmental computing
that would ultimately affect enterprise computing was the oxygen supply
the fire needed, and so we found ourselves hoist on our own petard.
> > Your post gives the impression that we have a new PL/I compiler
sitting
> > here on CMS that we don't want to ship. If such a thing exists, I've
> > never seen it or heard of it.
> >
> Not so much a case of IBM having a new version of PL/I for CMS just
> sitting on a shelf somewhere and not being shipped as a case that the
> PL/I compiler team uses CMS in it's development and a version for that
> environment could be made available with very little additional effort.
I've poked at statements like this in the past. Effort by how many
people? You know as well as anyone that developing a product is just one
of the steps in bringing a product to market. You have to validate it,
package it, market it, service it, and, in general, manage it. That ain't
cheap. I notice that not all Linux software is available on all
platforms, either. Why? Because just cross-compiling isn't sufficient.
> Having such an updated PL/I compiler, with the many new features and
> functions that have been introduced since the current compiler for VM
> ("PL/I for MVS and VM", 5688-235) was made available, would be a real
> boon to the ISVs who use PL/I.
I hope that all the z/VM ISVs who are using PL/I are pounding on their PWD
contacts to express their concerns.
> You're correct as far as you go with that statement, Alan....CMS is a
> great scripting tool environment, which also makes it a great place do
> to "real" application development and deployment as well.
I'm not sure I see the relationship, Dave. Why does a good scripting
environment imply a good AD environment? (2 pages, 1/2" margins, pica,
double spaced, due Monday, you have a good w/e too!).
TGIF.
Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott
