See? Alan's reply is precisely why I thought "it seemed prudent to run it past others for wider consideration."
I suspect that there will be many new LoZ (a new "Linux on System Z" acronym seen recently, and MUCH less to type) customers who will not purchase IBM OM, or CA VM:Operator, but whom would benefit from this capability right out of the box (i.e. sample directory entries). Automation products can't be justified for something this small - for many other reasons, absolutely YES -- but not this. > potentially decrease the revenue from OM Really? _Really_!!?? If the purchase of OM or any automation product was based on this feature, the case for OM must have been pretty weak in the first place. > CP's role is to provide hooks and assists to authorized virtual machines, but he's not going to do it himself. Hmmm... adding a time-based CLOSE sounds like an "assist" to me. But I'm not gonna invest my limited time fighting for this small improvement to benefit new LoZ customers. I thought it was pretty small, and I thought that such enhancements were part of IBM's customer satisfaction job. (Feel the knife twist right there at the end?) ;-) Mike Walter Aon Corporation The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's. "Alan Altmark" <alan_altm...@us.ibm.com> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> 02/11/2011 03:00 PM Please respond to "The IBM z/VM Operating System" <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: Closing console (and other o/p UR devices) at midnight or other times. On Friday, 02/11/2011 at 03:10 EST, Martin Zimelis <martin.zime...@gmail.com> wrote: > David's comment is a perfect example of the reason Rich is exactly right: The > requirement should specify the effect you want, not the method of > implementation. > > And don't forget to include the business case for the enhancement in the > requirement. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but given that IBM already solved the essence of this problem with IBM Operations Manager for z/VM (OM), there is no business case I can think of that would make this happen. Making such a change in CP would increase the investment in z/VM (with no increase in revenue) and potentially decrease the revenue from OM. Now, I can certainly think of some requirements for Operations Manager to make it a better virtual machine console management system. Requirements that, if satisfied, could potentially *increase* the revenue of OM. In general, system automation is not going to be a built-in function of CP. CP's role is to provide hooks and assists to authorized virtual machines, but he's not going to do it himself. It's like asking for more ESM-like security functions in CP. Not gonna happen. 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 The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.
