I have used it in a past life for 2 systems located within a few feet of each other. It may be worth consideration.
When I arrived here, VM:Operator was already firmly rooted, so it is likely to be the tool of choice; however, if there are compelling reasons to make a change, it most likely will be made. Regards, Richard Schuh -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Bohnsack Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:28 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: OPERATOR Consoles A poor man's alternative to VM:Operator, probably for a smaller number of systems and with lesser capabilities, would be the Programmable Operator facility that comes with VM. I don't want to start an argument here. I know that VM:Operator would do a great job but if you are only talking about a few systems and don't want to spend any money (your time is free, after all), take a look at PROP. I will admit that I've never tried to use it for this purpose, but I have used PROP for 20 years or so and it does the job. Jim Schuh, Richard wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C7EA82.B3960EE4 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > In the not too distant future, we will possibly have VM systems > scattered almost as widely as we have datacenters. What products are > available that would allow the operations of these systems to be handled > from a single location, if such exist? For example, can VM:Operator be > used across a span of 2000 miles in the continental US? Between the US > and Japan? Are there other products that can do the job? > > Regards,=20 > Richard Schuh=20 > > > > -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
