> > Well, the *idea* with the zAAP was that it wouldn't count. SAS is > > probably an exception in being that bone-headed. > > > > I didn't mean to imply that SAS intended to charge extra for a zAAP. > Only that, as OEM vendors start using Java more on the mainframe, they > may decide to charge for a zAAP just as they do for a general > CP.
Given that that's usually the #1 complaint about z/OS on mainframes (software cost), it'd be pretty dumb. But, as you say, that never stops marketing people...8-) > After > all, the reason to charge more for a larger machine is that "you are > getting more done" (or some such BS). So, if I write a system which is > 20% (to grab a number) written in Java and I change by CPU power, > wouldn't it make sense to charge 20% more if you have a zAAP? Although if it doesn't change the model #, and you can't really detect it, how would you know? AFAIK, IBM set out to make it deliberately hard to find out if a zAAP is active. I'd think that trying to surcharge based on zAAP presence would be pretty much suicidal. -- db ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
