Perhaps not, but the people that make the decisions on what to devote resources to, have "people" to do the grunt work. And, perhaps with the number of installs the z/VM development group does, it is highly documented all your "local' modifications.
But in any case, you are running with the same local modification through out, hopefully, a very long careir. Being a VM bigot, I hate to say this, but a plain vanilla VM system, is a hinderance to getting things done. I tend to get stopped in the water, without a "submit" exec. And mine now process included members and do symbolic subsititution, so output is routed back to the sender. ICCF has these functions <G>. And of course, the cut and paste commands to move/copy lines between members. How basic is that? There is great things that are done to support the MVS and now Linux world under VM. Once VM went OCO, CMS died. I still try to keep all of my stuff, for support of my VSE systems, DB2, Linux, under CMS. Perhaps I'm one of the last ones that use CMS. Perhaps everyone else has moved their mainframe support to a PC platform. Just run CP as a supercharged LPAR. I can't believe, based on the discussions the last few days, that, based on the number of accidental "shutdowns", that hasn't been taken as a security problem. I'm not saying that all of this has to be done. But, consider if there was a VM Development supported, "function pack". I wanted to say "CMS Utilities", but that has been a bunch of dying code for decades. A package of functions. Submit, source inclusion, xedit prefix commands, method to aid in the prevention of accidental shutdowns, a dumb performance pack, PROP utilities, the new PIPEs perhaps called PIPE2 so we can have both running at the same time. The point is, each of our shops, have many in-house developed utilities. They are different from shop to shop, if they exist. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting Law of Cat Thermodynamics Heat flows from a warmer to a cooler body, except in the case of a cat, in which case all heat flows to the cat. >>> Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/8/2007 8:14 AM >>> On Wednesday, 11/07/2007 at 05:02 EST, Tom Duerbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But that is the problem with development folks. They sit on the same machine, > day after day, year after year and think all the "user add ons" is a one time > thing. The user add ons seem to take more time putting on a VM system then the > install of VM! Ahem. You must be talking about generic brand "development folks". z/VM Development does not sit on the same machine day after day, year after year, nor do we think post-installation customization is a one-time thing. When we upgrade the software or the hardware, we, like many others, inevitably forget to enable/set something. Our primary VM system is actually a production system since our mission is to product development, but it runs a development version of z/VM once it has stabilized sufficiently to do so. And if you like, we can add artificial delays into the install process so that it takes longer. :-) What you describe is a Good Thing! You *should* spend more time on the things that increase the value of the system than on the system itself. I'm not clear on why it's a bad thing that the install process be such a small part of the migration effort. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
