Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Moulder I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic. Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to run on a PSI machine. If PSI totally on its own writes firmware loaded at IPL time to allow z/OS to run on an Itanium 2 dual core processor, then why couldn't the customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine. Of course the customer would be taking some risk because the support would probably have to come from PSI primarily and not IBM. Seems to me like in the Amdahl days each machine was assigned a Capacity ID by IBM and that was used for pricing of software. Have things changed? Am I way off base? I guess my main question goes back to the word ALLOW. How can IBM have so much control? IBM owns the software, lock, stock and barrel. If you want to drive it, you comply with IBM's Ts Cs (Terms Conditions). It's sort of like driving my car: I grant you a license to drive my car, but YOU (and nobody else) may drive it only from here to there and back, and only on these specific roads, and only during that time of day. If you find these Ts Cs too restrictive, then drive somebody else's car. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though. This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an RS/6000. US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997) Birger Heede IBM Phil Payne wrote: My point was it is possible to cheat IBM (illegally of course) without Hercules or PSI machine. So, it is not good excuse for denying software for PSI machine owners. a) I don't see the connection. b) That isn't the excuse in any case. In fact, IBM has not said in public what its response to a request to license its software on a PSI platform would be, just as it never said the same about Hercules. There are very strong parallels between the two. It has only been pointed out that no PSI machines are listed in IBM's tables at http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/library/swpriceinfo/ Well, there are a lot of other systems not listed there that have received licenses, so I wouldn't regard that as definitive just yet. Even IBM's own emulation (xSeries 430) isn't listed. Love to know what a 9662 is, though. I do feel that both PSI and T3 are being less than forthcoming about the state of their licensing agreements with IBM. It's obviously up to them how much they tell the market, but I hope they're telling their VCs the truth. I'd like to hear something about z/VM support, too - I can't see any box being a success today without it. I/O seems to be a major issue, just as it was with Fundamental's FLEX-ES. I held a prototype PCI ESCON card in my hand around five years before it shipped. Few FLEX-ES boxes use external I/O because Flex's DASD emulation and FAKETAPE are so good, but if you're aiming further up the MIPS chart you _need_ external I/O support - and these days that means FICON. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Moulder Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:14 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 snip Upgrades have always been an issue in the z environment, now others are taking note of this and trying to do the same things for other platforms. So, there are a lot of devil in the details. Like how PSI would handle the CPU serial number and upgrades to the processor number and speed. I suppose they could change the serial number on an upgrade and force the customer to deal with IBM since the software is licensed to a CPU. Being the geek-head that I am, I would be greatly tempted to reverse engineer the microcode to determine where the CPUID and the output from STSI came from and zap it to be what I think would be better. Yes, I realize that this would likely be in violation of the license for whatever PSI uses. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:31:06 -, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK wrote: a) IBM didn't have a clue how much power an Amdahl (or any other pocessor) had. Amdahl (and I was part of the process) declared its processors to IBM. Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me. But IBM did have a clue, at least in later years. Many IBM compatible processor models are also measured for the LSPR, whenever machine time can be obtained. See, for example: http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/lspr/os390t2.html b) You obviously know NOTHING about emulation, or at least commercial emulation. Thank you. Fundamental's FLEX-ES is controlled these days by a USB dongle that defines the permitted performance and number of engines. Yes, you can rehost onto a faster Intel processor or add engines - but FSI's code works with the dongle to deliver exactly the licensed MIPS on the number of engines licensed. You buy 8 MIPS (actually 7.9) and you get 8 MIPS. There is no uncertainty in the process whatever. It sounds to me as if you're saying that MIPS is not meaningless on emulated processors, but very precise. Somehow it's difficult to believe that you'd be saying that. I can see though that the dongle could provide the capacity control or regulation that would be required. These days, with measured usage perhaps the dongle could be used to provide the capacity information needed to z/OS for the change in charging that would go with an upgrade to the underlying hardware. Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Birger, Was this the old R/390 follow-on to the P/390? Bob Richards -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Birger Heede Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though. This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an RS/6000. US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997) Birger Heede IBM LEGAL DISCLAIMER The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. SunTrust and Seeing beyond money are federally registered service marks of SunTrust Banks, Inc. [ST:XCL] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S. Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:30 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 snip What stops you from using z/OS on large z/Series machine without paying for it ? You can buy license for the smallest z9BC and use the same code on 2064-2C16 bought on second-hand market. Or several machines. Or without buying any license, just pay your friendly sysprog for copy of the tapes... It's legal issue, not technical one. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland True for z/OS and IBM software. Not true for most OEM software. Especially CA's software. It locks by CPUID. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its content is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this transmission, or taking any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Birger Heede wrote: Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though. This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an RS/6000. US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997) Can we say Phil knows nothing about mainframe machines ? Not good as for consultant. vbg -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Bob My ann ltr reference was not actually to the first announce of the P/390 card (just a ref. I had 'close by'). I actually thought we (IBM) used R/390 for the RS/6000 version and P/390 for the PC Server version - but this ann. ltr. did not. I checked one of the redbooks on the subject and realized that this naming stuff is not an easy subject :-) See this reference (page 11): http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg244847.pdf I think the answer to your question is yes and no :-) No - the P/390 is the name of the Card (P=PCI?) (that started with the PC Server implementation) Yes - The P/390 in the RS/6000 implementation is referred to as R/390 (and RS/6000 support came later than the PC support) lots of disclaimers Birger not a spokesperson Heede IBM Richards.Bob wrote: Birger, Was this the old R/390 follow-on to the P/390? Bob Richards -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Birger Heede Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though. This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an RS/6000. US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997) Birger Heede IBM LEGAL DISCLAIMER The information transmitted is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. SunTrust and Seeing beyond money are federally registered service marks of SunTrust Banks, Inc. [ST:XCL] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Can we put this whole thing to bed, please? We all know that IBM owns the intellectual property know as z/OS and can license, or not license it, whenever or whereever they please. The fact that their restrictions may be, to some of us, unreasonable does not negate the point that IBM may have reasons that we don't know, or understand, or agree with, for their licensing decisions. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Birger Heede Bob My ann ltr reference was not actually to the first announce of the P/390 card (just a ref. I had 'close by'). I actually thought we (IBM) used R/390 for the RS/6000 version and P/390 for the PC Server version - but this ann. ltr. did not. I checked one of the redbooks on the subject and realized that this naming stuff is not an easy subject :-) See this reference (page 11): http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg244847.pdf I think the answer to your question is yes and no :-) No - the P/390 is the name of the Card (P=PCI?) (that started with the PC Server implementation) ISTR the P/390 was Micro-Channel At a former job we had a System/390 Server 330 or something like that. -jc- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
I would not like you to conclude that. Phil's memory is much better than mine (whether his is hardened on external storage or not). So if he knows nothing where does that leave me? Birger Heede IBM R.S. wrote: Birger Heede wrote: Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though. This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an RS/6000. US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997) Can we say Phil knows nothing about mainframe machines ? Not good as for consultant. vbg -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
AMEN, Brother! Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU 11/06/2006 11:40 AM Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU To IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU cc Subject Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 Can we put this whole thing to bed, please? We all know that IBM owns the intellectual property know as z/OS and can license, or not license it, whenever or whereever they please. The fact that their restrictions may be, to some of us, unreasonable does not negate the point that IBM may have reasons that we don't know, or understand, or agree with, for their licensing decisions. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On 6 Nov 2006 08:40:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman) wrote: We all know that IBM owns the intellectual property know as z/OS and can license, or not license it, whenever or whereever they please. The fact that their restrictions may be, to some of us, unreasonable does not negate the point that IBM may have reasons that we don't know, or understand, or agree with, for their licensing decisions. It is interesting that Apple had a short while when it licensed its OS to third party vendors - but changed its mind.I don't know what factors entered into its decision, but suspect that it would have been much more difficult to switch to first one than another completely different CPU design if they didn't control the hardware. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Tom Marchant wrote: [...] When Amdahl started selling processors, the operating system was free. When IBM started to charge for it, they knew how much power an Amdahl processor had and where it fit in the pricing structure. It's harder for them to know that with am emulator. What stops you from putting in faster processors, or additional processors? What stops you from using z/OS on large z/Series machine without paying for it ? You can buy license for the smallest z9BC and use the same code on 2064-2C16 bought on second-hand market. Or several machines. Or without buying any license, just pay your friendly sysprog for copy of the tapes... It's legal issue, not technical one. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 15:14:00 -0600, Tom Moulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Begin Quoted E-mail -- then why couldn't the customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine. You don't buy z/OS. You license it to run on a particular machne. When Amdahl started selling processors, the operating system was free. When IBM started to charge for it, they knew how much power an Amdahl processor had and where it fit in the pricing structure. It's harder for them to know that with am emulator. What stops you from putting in faster processors, or additional processors? Tom Marchant End Quoted E-mail -- Excuse me for using the word buy -- I knew better that you license software. As I said, you license the software for *a particular machine.* That's the relevant phrase. You had suggested buying it and running it on another platform, which would be a violation of the licensing terms. Upgrades have always been an issue in the z environment, now others are taking note of this and trying to do the same things for other platforms. So, there are a lot of devil in the details. Like how PSI would handle the CPU serial number and upgrades to the processor number and speed. I suppose they could change the serial number on an upgrade and force the customer to deal with IBM since the software is licensed to a CPU. As you say, the devil is in the details. You've avoided the question that I asked, so I'll ask it again with emphasis. What stops *you* from putting in faster processors, or additional processors? I didn't ask about PSI upgrading the underlying hardware. Of course, PSI could, in principle, provide the same sort of processor capacity information to the operating system that modern hardware provides. Then, if you put in additional or faster processors, the MSU rating would be provided to MVS. This would be a non-trivial thing to do accurately due to the number of variables involved in system performance. -- Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
In a message dated 11/5/2006 9:30:54 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You can buy license for the smallest z9BC and use the same code on 2064-2C16 bought on second-hand market. Or several machines. Or without buying any license, just pay your friendly sysprog for copy of the tapes... It's legal issue, not technical one. You end paying for all MSUs in service and support. Creatively you can reduce the charges by moving the ISV software around or unloading the print servers to AIX. Guess about the only time I've every loaned anybody software was when a local service bureau was on it's way out and had lost many of it's people and had a big lightning enema. IBM had the service contract but the customer hadn't done maint in a while and their version of ICKDSF wouldn't format the new dasd so I cut them a copy of SAICKDSF and gave it to the SE on the account. Paying for or loaning IBM tapes is illegal in US-Property of IBM. Seen people fired for bringing in unlicensed software to large shops. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman Sent: Saturday 04 November 2006 07:55 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Alan, there's nothing wrong with being paternal, as you put it. But sometimes the policies of IBM seem to be rather foolish. And that sometimes makes IBM's legal reps look equally foolish. As a Hercules user, I can't do the software development I'd like to, because MVS 3.8 doesn't have RACF installed; nor does it have the z/OS features that might make things so much more elegant, and efficient, for my efforts. Begging for z/System time from friends isn't really an option, because of the legal ramifications. And there's a bunch of us in the same boat! Being stuck on a barely-adequate pension, I'd like to augment my income with low-priced software that works well (maybe become another McKinney Systems? G) but IBM's policy about licensing z/OS to run under Hercules (NOT) effectively cuts me out. This after being a loyal IBM fan for nearly 40 years. (grumble) Amen, Rick. I've got ideas that I'd like to play with but cannot for these very same reasons. In my case, it's after 25+ years (including college days) of being loyal to IBM. The sad thing is that for my prototype application, I'm having to use Visual C++ Express on Windows. I really don't want to (WD4z, anyone?). But the price is right. (Heck, if I could find free time on a BS2000/OSD or MSP box, I'd take it. Close enough.) Later, Ray -- M. Ray Mullins Roseville, CA, USA http://www.catherdersoftware.com/ http://www.mrmullins.big-bear-city.ca.us/ http://www.the-bus-stops-here.org/ German is essentially a form of assembly language consisting entirely of far calls heavily accented with throaty guttural sounds. ---ilvi French is essentially German with messed-up pronunciation and spelling. --Robert B Wilson English is essentially French converted to 7-bit ASCII. ---Christophe Pierret [for Alain LaBonté] -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Ed Finnell wrote: In a message dated 11/5/2006 9:30:54 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You can buy license for the smallest z9BC and use the same code on 2064-2C16 bought on second-hand market. Or several machines. Or without buying any license, just pay your friendly sysprog for copy of the tapes... It's legal issue, not technical one. (Ed responses:) [...] Paying for or loaning IBM tapes is illegal in US-Property of IBM. Seen people fired for bringing in unlicensed software to large shops. OF COURSE it is illegal, not only in the US. It is as illegal as running software on bigger machine than licensed one, or on more machines. Breaking any rule from license agreement is illegal (unless law regulations allow for something). My point was it is possible to cheat IBM (illegally of course) without Hercules or PSI machine. So, it is not good excuse for denying software for PSI machine owners. -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Saturday, 11/04/2006 at 04:46ZE10, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM software may want to contact IBM. Pity customer(s) are perceived to be so bloody stupid that this even needs to be stated. I not necessarily disagreeing mind you, just bemoaning the situation. Stupid? Hardly. I've just observed that there's just a ... blind spot ... when it comes to licensing agreements. Perhaps it's because sysprogs aren't the people who see and must agree to the TsCs contained therein? In prehistoric times, when I was a customer, I just waited for the box of tapes manuals to arrive. Paperwork? WDNNS paperwork The new NCP is here! The new NCP is here! I'm somebody now! I'm somebody now! (apologies to Steve Martin). I wouldn't want to be the one who says Let's do X! only to end up blindsiding my boss because I didn't do my homework. You all are Family to me (I go to WAVV, SHARE, the zExpo, and regional user group), you are paying for my house (thanks, by the way), and I need for you to continue to succeed. So if I sometimes come across as bit paternal, please bear with me. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
One thing I find interesting in the PSI letter is that there is no mention of z/VM support, correctly licensed or not. :-) Given that a significant portion of new workloads being moved to the mainframe are zLinux and z/VM based, this is surprising, imho, at least. Perhaps PSI believes that being able to run Linux directly on the Intel processors negates the need to support virtual Linux guests. Of course, this might just be a case of PSI going after the sweet spot of the market first (z/OS). I believe that when FLEX-ES first came out, it only supported OS/390, z/OS and VSE. It was only somewhat latter (18 months?) that they got around to adding in support for the SIE instruction and VMmaybe PSI is following the same path DJ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
---snip- Stupid? Hardly. I've just observed that there's just a ... blind spot ... when it comes to licensing agreements. Perhaps it's because sysprogs aren't the people who see and must agree to the TsCs contained therein? In prehistoric times, when I was a customer, I just waited for the box of tapes manuals to arrive. Paperwork? WDNNS paperwork The new NCP is here! The new NCP is here! I'm somebody now! I'm somebody now! (apologies to Steve Martin). I wouldn't want to be the one who says Let's do X! only to end up blindsiding my boss because I didn't do my homework. You all are Family to me (I go to WAVV, SHARE, the zExpo, and regional user group), you are paying for my house (thanks, by the way), and I need for you to continue to succeed. So if I sometimes come across as bit paternal, please bear with me. -unsnip--- Alan, there's nothing wrong with being paternal, as you put it. But sometimes the policies of IBM seem to be rather foolish. And that sometimes makes IBM's legal reps look equally foolish. As a Hercules user, I can't do the software development I'd like to, because MVS 3.8 doesn't have RACF installed; nor does it have the z/OS features that might make things so much more elegant, and efficient, for my efforts. Begging for z/System time from friends isn't really an option, because of the legal ramifications. And there's a bunch of us in the same boat! Being stuck on a barely-adequate pension, I'd like to augment my income with low-priced software that works well (maybe become another McKinney Systems? G) but IBM's policy about licensing z/OS to run under Hercules (NOT) effectively cuts me out. This after being a loyal IBM fan for nearly 40 years. (grumble) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic. Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to run on a PSI machine. If PSI totally on its own writes firmware loaded at IPL time to allow z/OS to run on an Itanium 2 dual core processor, then why couldn't the customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine. Of course the customer would be taking some risk because the support would probably have to come from PSI primarily and not IBM. Seems to me like in the Amdahl days each machine was assigned a Capacity ID by IBM and that was used for pricing of software. Have things changed? Am I way off base? I guess my main question goes back to the word ALLOW. How can IBM have so much control? Tom Moulder Just another dinosaur out here scraping a living off z technology -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 12:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 On Friday, 11/03/2006 at 07:18 MST, Jeffrey D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand is if IBM won't allow z/OS to run on a Hercules system, then why would IBM allow z/OS to run on a PSI system? Please note that no PSI machines are listed at http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/library/swpriceinfo/hardware.h tml . Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM software may want to contact IBM. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.26/516 - Release Date: 11/3/2006 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:32:48 -0600, Tom Moulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic. Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to run on a PSI machine. If PSI totally on its own writes firmware loaded at IPL time to allow z/OS to run on an Itanium 2 dual core processor, then why couldn't the customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine. You don't buy z/OS. You license it to run on a particular machne. Of course the customer would be taking some risk because the support would probably have to come from PSI primarily and not IBM. Seems to me like in the Amdahl days each machine was assigned a Capacity ID by IBM and that was used for pricing of software. When Amdahl started selling processors, the operating system was free. When IBM started to charge for it, they knew how much power an Amdahl processor had and where it fit in the pricing structure. It's harder for them to know that with am emulator. What stops you from putting in faster processors, or additional processors? Tom Marchant -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Begin Quoted E-mail -- then why couldn't the customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine. You don't buy z/OS. You license it to run on a particular machne. Of course the customer would be taking some risk because the support would probably have to come from PSI primarily and not IBM. Seems to me like in the Amdahl days each machine was assigned a Capacity ID by IBM and that was used for pricing of software. When Amdahl started selling processors, the operating system was free. When IBM started to charge for it, they knew how much power an Amdahl processor had and where it fit in the pricing structure. It's harder for them to know that with am emulator. What stops you from putting in faster processors, or additional processors? Tom Marchant End Quoted E-mail -- Excuse me for using the word buy -- I knew better that you license software. Upgrades have always been an issue in the z environment, now others are taking note of this and trying to do the same things for other platforms. So, there are a lot of devil in the details. Like how PSI would handle the CPU serial number and upgrades to the processor number and speed. I suppose they could change the serial number on an upgrade and force the customer to deal with IBM since the software is licensed to a CPU. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:44:14 -, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: vast snip I was sceptical about Hercules. I got slimed for it, but I was right. Can't let you get away with that, Phil - you were dead wrong. You repeatedly stated that IBM would shut Hercules down, harped on about intellectual property infringement (ignoring IBM's stated position that it wouldn't enforce its patents against open-source projects) - hell at several points I recall you predicting that IBM were going to get a 'cease and desist' against the Hercules programmers - here's part of the post, from you: (from the 'missing redbook chapter' saga in 2002) Clearing the decks for a 'Cease and Desist'. IBM can hardly issue one if some of its own documentation seems to sanction Hercules. It's come a bit late, too - back in Autumn I posted that I expected it in mid-February, but I guess lawyers get paid by the hour. Hercules is very much alive and well, and still costs the same as it did when you were sceptical about it :-) Mike http://www.corestore.org -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Knutson, Sam wrote: More news from PSI on the state of their commercial emulation solution. The next few months seem to hold the potential for interesting developments in this area. Thanks, Sam Interesting. Can you do a rough comparison of PSI's offering to FLEX-ES and Hercules? Can PWD people get the software at low cost for all three platforms (well, I know right now that Hercules cannot legally run z/OS without some special dispensation). Clever term open mainframe, but what does it really mean? Certainly not open in the open source sense? Kind regards, -Steve Comstock -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
The PSI letter is intriguing. Will it reduce software costs? Will it perform as well as its Big Blue cousin? Will it become a very viable alternative to the server farm? Daniel McLaughlin Z-Series Systems Programmer Crawford Company 4680 N. Royal Atlanta Tucker GA 30084 phone: 770-621-3256 fax: 770-621-3237 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.crawfordandcompany.com This transmission is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are NOT authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication, its attachments or any part of them. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this communication from all computers. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Comstock Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:57 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 Knutson, Sam wrote: More news from PSI on the state of their commercial emulation solution. The next few months seem to hold the potential for interesting developments in this area. Thanks, Sam Interesting. Can you do a rough comparison of PSI's offering to FLEX-ES and Hercules? Can PWD people get the software at low cost for all three platforms (well, I know right now that Hercules cannot legally run z/OS without some special dispensation). Clever term open mainframe, but what does it really mean? Certainly not open in the open source sense? Kind regards, -Steve Comstock What I don't understand is if IBM won't allow z/OS to run on a Hercules system, then why would IBM allow z/OS to run on a PSI system? /J -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 07:18:16 -0700, Jeffrey D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I don't understand is if IBM won't allow z/OS to run on a Hercules system, then why would IBM allow z/OS to run on a PSI system? Better legal representation and past history. Remember a company called Amdahl? :-) Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - GITO mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] z/OS and OS390 expert at http://searchDataCenter.com/ateExperts/ Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Jeffrey D. Smith wrote: What I don't understand is if IBM won't allow z/OS to run on a Hercules system, then why would IBM allow z/OS to run on a PSI system? Perhaps because PSI is an established company, like FSI (Flex/ES) and UMX. If a company was marketing a packaged solution based on Hercules, it may be difficult for IBM to refuse to sell z/OS licenses to that company's customers. -- Gilbert Saint-Flour GSF Software http://gsf-soft.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
snip Interesting. Can you do a rough comparison of PSI's offering to FLEX-ES and Hercules? Can PWD people get the software at low cost for all three platforms (well, I know right now that Hercules cannot legally run z/OS without some special dispensation). Clever term open mainframe, but what does it really mean? Certainly not open in the open source sense? Kind regards, -Steve Comstock /snip Apparently their definition of open mainframe means it runs on an Intel processor. From their press release it is running on an industry-standard Intel Itanium 2. Since when was the Itanic an industry standard? Rex -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On 11/3/06, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing adds up with PSI. Nothing. I hear random, unsupported comments - supposedly from IBM executives - about PSI never getting license agreements because we don't deal with patent infringers. -- So, how do you explain the fact that they have demonstrated running z/OS on one of their machines. Where did that licence come from. Jim McAlpine -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On 3 Nov 2006 08:09:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pommier, Rex R.) wrote: Apparently their definition of open mainframe means it runs on an Intel processor. From their press release it is running on an industry-standard Intel Itanium 2. Since when was the Itanic an industry standard? Define what industry is being referred to here. Is it the mainframe computer industry? The Information Technology industry? Or is it for whatever industry a prospective customer is from? Do they have standards for processors? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 10:42 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4 On 3 Nov 2006 08:09:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pommier, Rex R.) wrote: Apparently their definition of open mainframe means it runs on an Intel processor. From their press release it is running on an industry-standard Intel Itanium 2. Since when was the Itanic an industry standard? Define what industry is being referred to here. Is it the mainframe computer industry? The Information Technology industry? Or is it for whatever industry a prospective customer is from? Do they have standards for processors? Howard, I can't define any of these things because PSI didn't in their press release. My guess would be Intel's 64 bit processor industry. Or maybe PSI's open mainframe industry. :-) Your questions fall right in line with what Steve asked: What is an open mainframe. Apparently the answer to all these questions is whatever the writer of the press release says it is. Rex -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 01:37 -0500, Alan Altmark wrote: Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM software may want to contact IBM. Pity customer(s) are perceived to be so bloody stupid that this even needs to be stated. I not necessarily disagreeing mind you, just bemoaning the situation. Shane ... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:37:33 -0500, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please note that no PSI machines are listed at http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/library/swpriceinfo/hardware.html . Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM software may want to contact IBM. Neither is the IBM 8668 which is the system used to run an ESL 8 mips FLEX based system. Intestingly enough, this document was updated on 4/27/2006 (which I take to mean 27 April) whereas IBM dropped ESL pricing 31/12/2005 yet its still listed. Surely if you can no longer get this pricing then it shouldn't be there? Seb. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
