Hi, Alan. On 12/13/2010 02:38 PM, Alan Altmark wrote: > On Monday, 12/13/2010 at 09:41 EST, George Henke/NYLIC > <george_he...@newyorklife.com> wrote: >> I'm just grateful z/VM is still alive and well and getting stronger and > better >> every day especially with the advent of the z196 and that it is only a > question >> of time before the compiler issue will be addressed. > > Not likely, George. > > The problem with CMS as an application platform isn't the compilers. As > others have noted, that's easily and [relatively] cheaply solved. The > problem is that application developers use compilers as a means to an end, > not an end in themselves. Business application programmers want to write > web-enabled apps and services for UIs and database access. They want > WebSphere, WAS, DB2/UDB, Oracle, and WebLogic. They want to write RESTful > applications. They want to write in Java. And, of course, they don't > want just some minimal core level of function, they want the whole > enchilada. > Great, let those developers use whatever tools and platforms they choose to; they are not the group I am speaking of. I think we can all agree that the time of CMS hosting large scale "business" applications has long since passed.
> And in case it's not evident, business cases for compilers are developed > around *business* application development, not systems management. > Firstly, companies don't *want* to write their own systems management > software - they want to buy it. Secondly, the number of people wanting to > write their own systems management software on CMS is vanishingly small. > So to have a viable business, you have to have enough demand to drive > significant revenue. I say "significant" because there are lots of places > IBM can invest. Should it invest those resources in something that > returns a small profit, or large? (Note: I'm a stockholder, so I'm > biased.) > So what you are saying is that the only interest folks might have in using modern compilers on CMS is to write "business" applications and nothing else? Remember that IBM first sold us on PL/I as an all-purpose language, one that could be used for systems programming applications as well as business ones.....so I don't see thjis as an issue of "nobody writes business applications anymore on CMS, so we don't need to provide the compilers....". > Those who are in the *business* of CMS-based [systems] software > development might *prefer* COBOL or PL/I, sure, but they know what > languages are available to them and they have to decide whether the market > conditions and the availability of "development infrastructure" are > sufficient to meet their business goals. In IT, as in almost all walks of > life, it is unfortunate yet true that that the wishes of the Few or the > One are ignored in favor of the wishes of the many. > Yes, we know what's available for development work on CMS, but surely you're not saying we should not ask for more tools.....or that we should simply sit down, shut up and be happy with whatever IBM thinks we need? It is certainly true that there are a relatively few of us interested in developing such software but I believe that we make the overall z/VM environment more attractive to potential customers, and thus fill an important role in the zSeries ecosystem. and it's not a case of "the wishes of the Few or the One are ignored in favor of the wishes of the many".....it's more of a case of out of, say, 100 VM advocates, 4 want IBM to port PL/I to CMS and the other 96 simply don't care, and not that the other 96 are actively against it. > You will see that z/VM continues to invest in its native back-end System > Management APIs and in the CIM "lowware" that pushes on them in order to > free the systems management software from *having* to run ON CMS. > Ultimately being able to manage system configuration, virtual machine > provisioning, real resource provisioning, operation, event management, > accounting, security, DR and HA, all from modern front-ends UIs with their > own scriptable CLIs. As you suggest, this is all part of the appeal of > zEnterprise. > That's great, and I hope IBM is successful in doing that, as I am an IBM stockholder as well....but we all know that there is no "one size fits all" in such software and sites will continue to tweak their capabilities with site-specific modifications (exits, glue routines, etc.). All I want is IBM to add one more tool to VM's kit to aid those sites. > By the way, none of the above in any way denies the acknowledged inherent > coolness of CMS. It's a simple and fast operating system; it's "single > userness" eliminating huge amounts of complexity. Of course, we make up > for that by having invented SFS and BFS, reintroducing some of that > complexity. :-) It is a two-edged sword! > > Agreed, and even SFS didn't add that much complexity, imho.(don't ask me about BFS) :-) BTW, all of the talk about not being able to create a "business case" for the port is a bit ironic (again, imho) given that the most important advances in VM over the years come from tools developed withOUT having a hard-nosed $$$-focused business case first: 1) CMs Pipelines, 2) rexx, 3) RSK, and 4) even the Linux port. The point being that clearly tool development can happen in the VM environment without always needing a business case being made first. Happy Holidays to all. DJ > Alan Altmark > > z/VM and Linux on System z Consultant > IBM System Lab Services and Training > ibm.com/systems/services/labservices > office: 607.429.3323 > alan_altm...@us.ibm.com > IBM Endicott > -- Dave Jones V/Soft Software www.vsoft-software.com Houston, TX 281.578.7544
