Re: Another long slow decline.
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. Raulerson Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:12 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. Yep, I mean Linux Assembler application code driving 3270 client screens really really fast. Yes, not just assembler, but HLASM (the GOOD stuff!) running in a Linux guest. Doing all sorts of neat things, like printing, talking over the network, process control, and a whole bunch more. With an Assembler Debugger that is hands down the best Assembler development tool anyone could imagine. :) VSAM? Well- we call it GSAM because the guy who wrote it in a couple weeks is named George. Why not? It is very very fast, and does not have the overhead of a DBRMS. It handles things like variable length records and so forth, and embeds the indexes in the same physical file as the data. (Makes it very easy to move things around.) We had to write file sharing and locking, but that was not overly onerous. And did I mention this stuff runs FAST? REAL FAST? -Paul grin Man, that is a dream-come-true. But we are on the Commercial, Off-the-Shelf Software bandwagon now. Management here would likely die laughing if we suggested such an environment. Too expensive! (their mantra) Takes too long to implement! And so on as to why it is impossible. Well, the HLASM part is definately impossible around here. I have enough problems helping the programmers with COBOL questions. Oh, and the problems are not on my end. And the answers are in the COBOL manuals. They just don't have time to read it. -- 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.
Re: Another long slow decline.
Laugh back at them - how much do you pay per month in z/OS licensing? :) z/VM is a OTC (One Time Charge in this case) product, listing at something like $40K per IFL. Linux from SuSE has a $5K per year support/subscription cost, and if you don't pay the sub,you can still use the product. HLASM from Dave Rivers is *amazingly* affordable. We could probably be coerced into licensing some software. :) All in all, the reason we went this route in the first place was simply the licensing costs for z/OS and CICS. The only significant costs we have are hardware maintenance, and those are roughly equivalent to the same costs on PCs or RS6000, or even iSeries machines. On the other hand, we have had exactly 20 minutes of downtime in over three years, and that was caused by a service element. Go figure... We needed an interactive environment that would allow us to port green screen apps, do web apps, client server, and so on. The development environment we use is incredibly productive for Assembler too - easily comparable with a COBOL or Java shop. Seriously. If you are anywhere near Austin, come visit. -Paul - Original Message - From: McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:46 AM Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. Raulerson Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:12 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. Yep, I mean Linux Assembler application code driving 3270 client screens really really fast. Yes, not just assembler, but HLASM (the GOOD stuff!) running in a Linux guest. Doing all sorts of neat things, like printing, talking over the network, process control, and a whole bunch more. With an Assembler Debugger that is hands down the best Assembler development tool anyone could imagine. :) VSAM? Well- we call it GSAM because the guy who wrote it in a couple weeks is named George. Why not? It is very very fast, and does not have the overhead of a DBRMS. It handles things like variable length records and so forth, and embeds the indexes in the same physical file as the data. (Makes it very easy to move things around.) We had to write file sharing and locking, but that was not overly onerous. And did I mention this stuff runs FAST? REAL FAST? -Paul grin Man, that is a dream-come-true. But we are on the Commercial, Off-the-Shelf Software bandwagon now. Management here would likely die laughing if we suggested such an environment. Too expensive! (their mantra) Takes too long to implement! And so on as to why it is impossible. Well, the HLASM part is definately impossible around here. I have enough problems helping the programmers with COBOL questions. Oh, and the problems are not on my end. And the answers are in the COBOL manuals. They just don't have time to read it. -- 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.
Re: Another long slow decline.
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. Raulerson Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:01 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. Laugh back at them - how much do you pay per month in z/OS licensing? :) They know. That is why they wanted to convert to Windows. They truly believed that they could replace the z890 (capacity 250) running z/OS and CICS mainly with two Unisys servers, one running MS SQL server, the other running all the applications. This would be significantly more cost effective. Around here zSeries is identically equal to too expensive. Period. Trying to convince them otherwise is just impossible. They refuse to listen. z/VM is a OTC (One Time Charge in this case) product, listing at something like $40K per IFL. We had z/VM on our IFL at one time. It was cancelled. Management had ideas that they could consolidate Windows servers onto an IFL running Linux. And didn't even bother to ask those of us who knew better. A computer is a computer is a computer! Linux from SuSE has a $5K per year support/subscription cost, and if you don't pay the sub,you can still use the product. Again, I had SUSE Linux under that z/VM. Unfortunately, since it was a UNIX system, we z/OS people were told hands off, it's not your area! It then died because the open systems people couldn't figure out anything to do with it. So they just ignored it and it died. Despite my requests to allow me to support it. No, that's not your area, be quiet. I now have SUSE SLES 10 running under Hercules/390 on an Athlon64 at home. Just to keep my hand in. HLASM from Dave Rivers is *amazingly* affordable. We could probably be coerced into licensing some software. :) I had System/ASM on my Linux system at home for a while. Unfortunately, my finances collapsed later that year due to illness in the family, which did not allow me to relicense it. The same with System/C. I agree that they are great products. I was attempting (perhaps foolishly) to see if I could cross-compile GNU software on my Intel/Linux system to run under z/OS. All in all, the reason we went this route in the first place was simply the licensing costs for z/OS and CICS. The only significant costs we have are hardware maintenance, and those are roughly equivalent to the same costs on PCs or RS6000, or even iSeries machines. Nice. You seem to have a much more open minded management than what I am used to. Here such a project would die before it could even be presented due to political factors. If we convert from z/OS (which is still the position of current management) to another platform, it __will__ be Windows. Period. End of discussion. Well, the plan is to allow z/OS to die a natural death as applications which run on it are replaced with COTS Windows software which does the same function without really doing a conversion, per se. On the other hand, we have had exactly 20 minutes of downtime in over three years, and that was caused by a service element. Go figure... We needed an interactive environment that would allow us to port green screen apps, do web apps, client server, and so on. The development environment we use is incredibly productive for Assembler too - easily comparable with a COBOL or Java shop. Seriously. If you are anywhere near Austin, come visit. -Paul -- 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.
Re: Another long slow decline.
Where can these products be found? David Kreuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 11/07/2006 08:25 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System To:IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc: Subject:Re: Another long slow decline. linux users on a 3270? really? tell me more! assembler? Do you mean assembler code in the linux virtual machines? VSAM? Why? Dvid Paul Raulerson wrote: Same here brother. Three years ago we had no IBM equipment whatsoever on site; today we have a Z800, a Shark, an iSeries, and a bladeserver, all working together very harmoniously. And all of it put together with a lot of BST. The mainframe, for example, is running about 20 instances of zLinux under z/VM, all of which are managed by essentially one person. The Linux systems support lots of users with 3270 clients (yes, Linux and 3270 clients - much better response time this way! :) and with a really slick homebuilt debugger, VSAM, and oh yeah - it is all pretty much written in HLASM. I'm as proubd of this as I can be, and it is both cost efficient and fast fast fast fast :) It *can* be done - the doing of it is something that takes a lot of time and committment though. -Paul
Re: Another long slow decline.
Hi, Paul. P. Raulerson wrote: z/VM is a OTC (One Time Charge in this case) product, listing at something like $40K per IFL. Actually, z/VM 5.2 is now priced at $22,500 (OTC) for one IFL engine. As the number of engines licensed increases,the charge per engine decreases. I have a document here that explains z/VM pricing in more detail, with examples, if anyone would like a copy. Linux from SuSE has a $5K per year support/subscription cost, and if you don't pay the sub,you can still use the product. HLASM from Dave Rivers is *amazingly* affordable. We could probably be coerced into licensing some software. :) I thought HLASM was an IBM product.are you using the version for Linux on zSeries? And what debugger are you using ? Seriously. If you are anywhere near Austin, come visit. I'm on the west side of Harris County (Houston, you may have heard of it up there in Austin:-). Where are you? Have a good one, and thanks for sharing your success.. DJ -Paul
Re: Another long slow decline.
HLASM from IBM is available for z/Linux, and it works very well. Dave Bond sells the Tachyon Assembler, it runs on z/Linux, and also works very well. We are using the Systems/ASM that Dave Rivers sells, and are very happy with it. That's THREE HLASM products that run under z/Linux. :) We had to build a debugger we liked, since we tend to use the debugger during development much more than other shops do. That's partly because we can compile and link a few thousand line programs in two or three seconds, and partly just because that is the way we like to work. Naturally, it is written in assembler - we just captured the signals and linked the debugger in to the applications as a default. Takes a tiny bit more RAM, but since it is self contained, it doesn't affect base register space or anything like that. We are in North Austin. Not all that far away. ;) Thanks for the info on z/VM 5.2 pricing - I was unaware the list pricing had been reduced. -Paul - Original Message - From: Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:28 PM Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. Hi, Paul. P. Raulerson wrote: z/VM is a OTC (One Time Charge in this case) product, listing at something like $40K per IFL. Actually, z/VM 5.2 is now priced at $22,500 (OTC) for one IFL engine. As the number of engines licensed increases,the charge per engine decreases. I have a document here that explains z/VM pricing in more detail, with examples, if anyone would like a copy. Linux from SuSE has a $5K per year support/subscription cost, and if you don't pay the sub,you can still use the product. HLASM from Dave Rivers is *amazingly* affordable. We could probably be coerced into licensing some software. :) I thought HLASM was an IBM product.are you using the version for Linux on zSeries? And what debugger are you using ? Seriously. If you are anywhere near Austin, come visit. I'm on the west side of Harris County (Houston, you may have heard of it up there in Austin:-). Where are you? Have a good one, and thanks for sharing your success.. DJ -Paul
Re: Another long slow decline.
Dave, I would like to see a copy of the pricing. Thanks Jim Dodds Systems Programmer Kentucky State University 400 East Main Street Frankfort, Ky 40601 502 597 6114 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Jones Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:29 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. Hi, Paul. P. Raulerson wrote: z/VM is a OTC (One Time Charge in this case) product, listing at something like $40K per IFL. Actually, z/VM 5.2 is now priced at $22,500 (OTC) for one IFL engine. As the number of engines licensed increases,the charge per engine decreases. I have a document here that explains z/VM pricing in more detail, with examples, if anyone would like a copy. Linux from SuSE has a $5K per year support/subscription cost, and if you don't pay the sub,you can still use the product. HLASM from Dave Rivers is *amazingly* affordable. We could probably be coerced into licensing some software. :) I thought HLASM was an IBM product.are you using the version for Linux on zSeries? And what debugger are you using ? Seriously. If you are anywhere near Austin, come visit. I'm on the west side of Harris County (Houston, you may have heard of it up there in Austin:-). Where are you? Have a good one, and thanks for sharing your success.. DJ -Paul
Re: Another long slow decline.
The jaw dropper here was from the consultants that keep asking for the mainframe budget figures over and over. They just couldn't believe that we were operating what we have for the costs. The mantra then became performance. Everything was suddenly so slow that almost no one could get there work done. Which was unusual because in that year we finished more ownership changes and set new values on more parcels then in any of the previous three years. The real issue here appears to be political. Conservatives believe privatizing government will make government smaller. No one ever said it would be cheep. Don't get me wrong I would be leading this charge if it was cheaper. I pay taxes in this town to. But to pay 300% more than the current cost, loose facility, loose performance, and the tax dollars go out of town is just mind numbing.
[OT] Re: Another long slow decline.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 7:15 AM, Steve_Domarski/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The real issue here appears to be political. Conservatives believe privatizing government will make government smaller. No one ever said it would be cheep. Conservatism as you described is simply cronyism: yeah, it costs the taxpayer more, but if you're the private subcontractor who gets the work, well, hey, cha-ching! See also: Halliburton. Fiscal conservatism is dead. It's a shame, really. Adam P.S. I've added the [OT] tag as this now has zero z/VM content.
Re: Another long slow decline.
Having worked for the Leon County Court systems in Tallahassee, I would suggest that your statements are not Politically Correct. They are true but not PC. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:15 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. The jaw dropper here was from the consultants that keep asking for the mainframe budget figures over and over. They just couldn't believe that we were operating what we have for the costs. The mantra then became performance. Everything was suddenly so slow that almost no one could get there work done. Which was unusual because in that year we finished more ownership changes and set new values on more parcels then in any of the previous three years. The real issue here appears to be political. Conservatives believe privatizing government will make government smaller. No one ever said it would be cheep. Don't get me wrong I would be leading this charge if it was cheaper. I pay taxes in this town to. But to pay 300% more than the current cost, loose facility, loose performance, and the tax dollars go out of town is just mind numbing.
Re: Another long slow decline.
So counter propose a zSeries based solution - say using Linux in an IFL and DB/2 with some kind of Client/Server application. IBM has some GREAT support for that now. Also talk to people like Dave Rivers (SYS/ASM) and Dave Bond (TACHYON) , both of whom frequent this list. They both have assembler products that run just dandy under Linux/390 on the mainframe. Faster than greased lightening too. And remember, that if you can come in with a proposal that preseves the legacy systems, satifies the Windows crowd who don't know anything about non-Windows platforms, and do it cheaper, faster, and better... well - that is a no-brainer for anyone. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Having worked for the Leon County Court systems in Tallahassee, I would suggest that your statements are not Politically Correct. They are true but not PC. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 8:15 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. The jaw dropper here was from the consultants that keep asking for the mainframe budget figures over and over. They just couldn't believe that we were operating what we have for the costs. The mantra then became performance. Everything was suddenly so slow that almost no one could get there work done. Which was unusual because in that year we finished more ownership changes and set new values on more parcels then in any of the previous three years. The real issue here appears to be political. Conservatives believe privatizing government will make government smaller. No one ever said it would be cheep. Don't get me wrong I would be leading this charge if it was cheaper. I pay taxes in this town to. But to pay 300% more than the current cost, loose facility, loose performance, and the tax dollars go out of town is just mind numbing. ---End Message---
Re: Another long slow decline.
Title: Message No, it isn't a "no brainer". I know. Previous management here had "no brains". They always chose Windows. Regardless of what was said or done or needed. --John McKownSenior Systems ProgrammerHealthMarketsKeeping the Promise of Affordable CoverageAdministrative Services GroupInformation TechnologyThis 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. -Original Message-From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul RaulersonSent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:19 PMTo: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUSubject: Re: Another long slow decline. So counter propose a zSeries based solution - say using Linux in an IFL and DB/2 with some kind of Client/Server application. IBM has some GREAT support for that now. Also talk to people like Dave Rivers (SYS/ASM) and Dave Bond (TACHYON) , both of whom frequent this list. They both have assembler products that run just dandy under Linux/390 on the mainframe. Faster than greased lightening too. And remember, that if you can come in with a proposal that preseves the legacy systems, satifies the Windows crowd who don't know anything about non-Windows platforms, and do it cheaper, faster, and better... well - that is a no-brainer for anyone. -Paul
Re: Another long slow decline.
I am working for a large gov't client. We worked *LONG* and *HARD* on the z/series business case - over 1 year. This included a successful POC showing that the platform (Oracle on linux on the mainframe using z/vm) would work - not performance - but feasible. The result is a nascent z9/ec with 130+ Oracle servers - with lots more work (Oracle and other apps) planned. Believe me its my pride and joy after my charming children, of course. The customer really likes it, too. We're saving a lot money on Oracle licenses, we support z/VM with 2 sysprogs, and 100+ servers with one linux guy (well, now it's 2). DBAs for Oracle were a wash. Disaster recovery was a huge win - as in z/series does it easily while other platforms - well, just can't get it rolling at DR. IBM was the focal point for this, plus, one person from IBM championed the solution for 18 months. Lesser mortals would have abandoned the project at the first turbulent meeting. Winning hearts and minds took a lot of effort. There are still doubters, but, it's tough to argue with success. I'm not suggesting that our issues are the same as the issues that Steve has dealt with. David McKown, John wrote: No, it isn't a no brainer. I know. Previous management here had no brains. They always chose Windows. Regardless of what was said or done or needed. -- 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. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Raulerson Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:19 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. So counter propose a zSeries based solution - say using Linux in an IFL and DB/2 with some kind of Client/Server application. IBM has some GREAT support for that now. Also talk to people like Dave Rivers (SYS/ASM) and Dave Bond (TACHYON) , both of whom frequent this list. They both have assembler products that run just dandy under Linux/390 on the mainframe. Faster than greased lightening too. And remember, that if you can come in with a proposal that preseves the legacy systems, satifies the Windows crowd who don't know anything about non-Windows platforms, and do it cheaper, faster, and better... well - that is a no-brainer for anyone. -Paul No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.31/522 - Release Date: 07/11/2006
Re: Another long slow decline.
Sure it is - the people at the top are probably pretty smart people, though they may not be knowledable in IT subjects. They speak in terms of money - so you just have to use the right language. As in dollars and cents make SENSE. Very very rarely are their places where economic sense is totally ignored, and that is rarely in a government office, despite zillinos of jokes to the contrary. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Title: Message No, it isn't a "no brainer". I know. Previous management here had "no brains". They always chose Windows. Regardless of what was said or done or needed. --John McKownSenior Systems ProgrammerHealthMarketsKeeping the Promise of Affordable CoverageAdministrative Services GroupInformation TechnologyThis 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. -Original Message-From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul RaulersonSent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:19 PMTo: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDUSubject: Re: Another long slow decline. So counter propose a zSeries based solution - say using Linux in an IFL and DB/2 with some kind of Client/Server application. IBM has some GREAT support for that now. Also talk to people like Dave Rivers (SYS/ASM) and Dave Bond (TACHYON) , both of whom frequent this list. They both have assembler products that run just dandy under Linux/390 on the mainframe. Faster than greased lightening too. And remember, that if you can come in with a proposal that preseves the legacy systems, satifies the Windows crowd who don't know anything about non-Windows platforms, and do it cheaper, faster, and better... well - that is a no-brainer for anyone. -Paul ---End Message---
Re: Another long slow decline.
Yep, I mean Linux Assembler application code driving 3270 client screens really really fast. Yes, not just assembler, but HLASM (the GOOD stuff!) running in a Linux guest. Doing all sorts of neat things, like printing, talking over the network, process control, and a whole bunch more. With an Assembler Debugger that is hands down the best Assembler development tool anyone could imagine. :) VSAM? Well- we call it GSAM because the guy who wrote it in a couple weeks is named George. Why not? It is very very fast, and does not have the overhead of a DBRMS. It handles things like variable length records and so forth, and embeds the indexes in the same physical file as the data. (Makes it very easy to move things around.) We had to write file sharing and locking, but that was not overly onerous. And did I mention this stuff runs FAST? REAL FAST? -Paul grin - Original Message - From: David Kreuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:25 PM Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. linux users on a 3270? really? tell me more! assembler? Do you mean assembler code in the linux virtual machines? VSAM? Why? Dvid Paul Raulerson wrote: Same here brother. Three years ago we had no IBM equipment whatsoever on site; today we have a Z800, a Shark, an iSeries, and a bladeserver, all working together very harmoniously. And all of it put together with a lot of BST. The mainframe, for example, is running about 20 instances of zLinux under z/VM, all of which are managed by essentially one person. The Linux systems support lots of users with 3270 clients (yes, Linux and 3270 clients - much better response time this way! :) and with a really slick homebuilt debugger, VSAM, and oh yeah - it is all pretty much written in HLASM. I'm as proubd of this as I can be, and it is both cost efficient and fast fast fast fast :) It *can* be done - the doing of it is something that takes a lot of time and committment though. -Paul
Re: Another long slow decline.
Hi Steve, By coincidence I recently used your county's online tax parcel web application, loved it, and was pleased to see it ran on VM. Sorry to hear it's going elsewhere. This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Another long slow decline. And so it begins, Management has decided after a year of thinking that the era of the mainframe is over here. The final I's are being doted, T's being crossed on a monster contract to replace our main application with a Computer Off The Shelf product. I love that acronym. COST or costs more is more to the point. I have read about more failed C/S system conversions based on the idea that the mainframe is Sooo.. expensive. My current operating budget is about $250,000/year and has a current operational life of about two more years giving a respectable $300,000/year operating cost over the 6 year operational plan. Yet we are about to embark on a C/S solution that replaces the current main application at $750,000/year for 5 years. Confused, I am! The current management mandated that I hold or reduce expenses for the past 7 years he has been in office. I did that leaving the I/T department at about 5% of total budget last year. Down from about 12% when he took office. Yet here we are spending 3 times more to do what some might say is the same work. I tend to think that we are loosing substantial capability as our historical data is being left behind. Where in the mind of the business today is it justifiable to spend more and more to do less and less. I'm not saying that the mainframe hasn't seen it's day here, it really has. There is a lot more to consider than a platform. We currently run pure VM using WEBSHARE CGI's to DB2 for our main driver. usually driving 100,000 transactions or HTTP requests per day plus batch COBOL. My long term expectation was to create a platform independent application that could grow and morph without the user needing to reinvent their jobs. I felt, and still do that Web based applications are and will be the best user presentation means to that end. We currently tie in to four other government office systems seamlessly through HTML links. In virtually all cases there was no need to place requirements on the other offices for those interfaces to work. The new system will require the vendor to create linkages out of there client to a web page to emulate that capability. This is a step backwards. Looks like some time next month we will kick of what will most likely be a long year of waiting and wanting. As I see it first hand the mainframe is as dead as IBM can make it and still milk income from it. The systems we put together here on a shoestring budget, and with two people, are first rate in terms of function. The vendor, talking management in to dropping much of it because they cannot handle it is clear enough for me. Having delved into Windows programming this year just far enough to wet my feet has proven that Microsoft's data base is a third string player to DB2 and others, so performance isn't an issue. Costs are deceiving. By moving the main cost element from hardware to software/services the sales teams are flimflamming there way to customers. The problem is that those same companies can be sold out, bought out or just plain go bankrupt at any time (one actual did). We are in the business of local government. We don't/can't just walk away. I spent six years in the NAVY and you learn that there's one hand for you and the other for the ship because that's all there is. The people of our community have expectations that government will just plane function is any situation. I dare say Katrina was an example of what government can really do when the ship is sinking. IBM is a business and as such has but one goal. I here a lot about business cases on this list. There are many cases where it's just the right thing to do. VM, VSE, and VM/DB2 still linger because there are customers still willing to pay the prices IBM sets. But none of these systems are growing. IBM itself is not making any effort to market them. That my friends is the death blow. My management doesn't see a future in these system or/and IBM. IBM's biggest failing is that they forced there customers to re-evaluate there positions by removing a stead fast foundation from which to build apron. I now find my self in Catch 22. I
Re: Another long slow decline.
Steve_Domarski Wrote: And so it begins, Management has decided after a year of thinking that the era of the mainframe is over here. I think it is not just beginning but is well under way in most places. Part of this is a sort of 'religious belief' in the conventional wisdom that anything that is not a mainframe will be cheaper (more cost effective) and will run modern systems better. Any arguments to the contrary, no matter how well supported by facts, are immediately dismissed as being presented by those stuck in the past with a vested interest in retaining mainframes. It seems to be a case of 'everybody else is doing it so it must be right - don't confuse me with the facts'. Here, like many places, there is a definite plan to eliminate mainframes from the organisation at almost any cost. Luckily for me it will take longer than most places, because of heavy reliance on TPF for our core business, so I should see it to retirement. Having said all this I do agree with what Steve implies, IBM are not entirely blameless in this decline. 1. When the Z/series with IFL's was announced a subtle change in the emphasis would have made a huge difference. If this had been announced as primarily a shared LINUX server that had the additional benefit of **also** running legacy mainframe code then there is a chance it would not have been tarred with the mainframe brush. 2.Software pricing has long been the bane of mainframe economics (with some justification). It is perfectly true that development and support costs must be reclaimed but the argument for maintaining high software costs for products that are now stabilised / out of support is much harder to justify. We are currently going through a software cost reduction exercise and are looking at the most expensive products first. Some that are no longer current fall into this category so we have found free or reduced cost alternatives. If IBM had reduced the monthly cost for outdated products to a more reasonable figure then we would probably not have even questioned them - as it is we eliminate the product and both we and IBM lose. Colin Allinson (speaking for myself)
Re: Another long slow decline.
Having been there myself, your best bet is to find yourself a new position ASAP. If they still need your services, they may be able to get you for a few hours a week at a nice hourly rate. Don't be a victim of their bad decision making - take advantage of it in every possible way. Ray Mrohs U.S. Department of Justice 202-307-6896 -Original Message- And so it begins, Management has decided after a year of thinking that the era of the mainframe is over here. The final I's are being doted, T's being crossed on a monster contract to replace our main application with a Computer Off The Shelf product. I love that acronym. COST or costs more is more to the point. I have read about more failed C/S system conversions based on the idea that the mainframe is Sooo.. expensive. My current operating budget is about $250,000/year and has a current operational life of about two more years giving a respectable $300,000/year operating cost over the 6 year operational plan. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA
Re: Another long slow decline.
Steve, Your email is very interesting. Here, there are two issues that are determining the future of mainframe and client/server Open systems environment (ie UNIX). The first issue is the philosophical issue that it can be done cheaper on client/server. Management refuses to look at the total cost of operation (TCO) of the client/server setup. I am simply told to get with it, this is the way of the future. Yet they see the big cost of the mainframe. They never compare apples for apples. It was recently announced that a HP Superdome was installed here. In a nut shell, a mainframe version of client/server, but we wont call it that. For what we have spent in client/server hardware over the past 10yrs to for People Soft, we could have bought several mainframes from IBM. It recently came to light that we have not had good backups of all of the client/server systems.One manager started to panic and a mainframe solution came to light . Work began on implementing it. Then it was quickly halted as it wasa mainframe solution.We would shudder to think of having shoddy backups of the mainframe. Yet it is ok for other systems? The second issue here is the funding model. The mainframe has always been a cost recovery model. We charge our mainframe users for CPU and disk space based on what it is costing us. Yet the systems supporting People Soft, are centrally funded. More or less a black hole as they pretty much get what they want. As more departments use less of the mainframe, we have to cut more and more of the mainframe budget.There appears to be no constraints on the open systems side. I wont even touch the topic of money spent on consultants here for People Soft. We were even mentioned in Information Week 10yrs ago about our investment in consultants for People Soft and it continues. Fortunately the mainframe will be here long for me to get my 30yrs in. Duane (As with Colin, these comments are my own.)
Re: Another long slow decline.
One reason for not looking at the TCO of the client/server setup is that they do not have those figures. At some of my old clients, the largest unknown cost was the client/server pieces and parts. They would estimate how many and how much. A large Publishing company in NE Ohio, was told to get an audit of all the C/S equipment and software and to ensure that all software was legal. Management was amazed at the cost (15 times the estimate of the hardware) and the software licensing was 'many times higher than expected'. But to paraphrase 'Nothing is more powerful than a BAD idea whose time has come'. Ed Martin Aultman Health Foundation 330-588-4723 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ext. 40441 -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan Altmark Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:26 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. On Monday, 11/06/2006 at 01:43 EST, Duane Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The first issue is the philosophical issue that it can be done cheaper on client/server. Management refuses to look at the total cost of operation (TCO) of the client/server setup.
Re: Another long slow decline.
Not wanting to mention the politics but it is a huge mistaken belief that privatizing government is efficient use of tax dollars. Not in this case. In the short and long term me and my associate could have rewritten the application using freeware from any number of platforms in the same time period that the vendor in planning to implement their custom solution. Mainframe not withstanding. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA Great minds discuss Ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover Colin Allinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU eus.com cc: Sent by: The IBM Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. z/VM Operating System [EMAIL PROTECTED] UARK.EDU 11/06/2006 11:43 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System Steve_Domarski Wrote: And so it begins, Management has decided after a year of thinking that the era of the mainframe is over here. I think it is not just beginning but is well under way in most places. Part of this is a sort of 'religious belief' in the conventional wisdom that anything that is not a mainframe will be cheaper (more cost effective) and will run modern systems better. Any arguments to the contrary, no matter how well supported by facts, are immediately dismissed as being presented by those stuck in the past with a vested interest in retaining mainframes. It seems to be a case of 'everybody else is doing it so it must be right - don't confuse me with the facts'. Here, like many places, there is a definite plan to eliminate mainframes from the organisation at almost any cost. Luckily for me it will take longer than most places, because of heavy reliance on TPF for our core business, so I should see it to retirement. Having said all this I do agree with what Steve implies, IBM are not entirely blameless in this decline. 1. When the Z/series with IFL's was announced a subtle change in the emphasis would have made a huge difference. If this had been announced as primarily a shared LINUX server that had the additional benefit of **also** running legacy mainframe code then there is a chance it would not have been tarred with the mainframe brush. 2.Software pricing has long been the bane of mainframe economics (with some justification). It is perfectly true that development and support costs must be reclaimed but the argument for maintaining high software costs for products that are now stabilised / out of support is much harder to justify. We are currently going through a software cost reduction exercise and are looking at the most expensive products first. Some that are no longer current fall into this category so we have found free or reduced cost alternatives. If IBM had reduced the monthly cost for outdated products to a more reasonable figure then we would probably not have even questioned them - as it is we eliminate the product and both we and IBM lose. Colin Allinson
Re: Another long slow decline.
This would be an option if I wasn't knee deep into building a house in a real estate market that is falling. A house I really like and would enjoy living in. To go anywhere means leaving the area and potentially Florida. The biggest hurt would be a 50% salary cut that would be expected starting over after 20 years on the job. My catch 22. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA Great minds discuss Ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover [EMAIL PROTECTED] .gov Ray.Mrohs To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent by: The IBM cc: z/VM Operating Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. System [EMAIL PROTECTED] UARK.EDU 11/06/2006 01:36 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System Having been there myself, your best bet is to find yourself a new position ASAP. If they still need your services, they may be able to get you for a few hours a week at a nice hourly rate. Don't be a victim of their bad decision making - take advantage of it in every possible way. Ray Mrohs U.S. Department of Justice 202-307-6896 -Original Message- And so it begins, Management has decided after a year of thinking that the era of the mainframe is over here. The final I's are being doted, T's being crossed on a monster contract to replace our main application with a Computer Off The Shelf product. I love that acronym. COST or costs more is more to the point. I have read about more failed C/S system conversions based on the idea that the mainframe is Sooo.. expensive. My current operating budget is about $250,000/year and has a current operational life of about two more years giving a respectable $300,000/year operating cost over the 6 year operational plan. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA
Re: Another long slow decline.
We get nothing but complements from our public web application. Some consider it the bests in Florida but management is caught up in the fact that we are not main stream. Yet I can do anything they ask with in a reasonable time frame. 10 years and 21 million delivered property pages its still going strong. The inhouse application is very different and has links directly to other agencies such as the public page does. We have actually had to advise other agencies to put headers on there pages to identify to the public that they had linked to a completely different site. For several years we had calls asking how we interfaced our systems so well that the Property Appraiser had that kind of access to Clerk of the Court data. It's been a joy to build and maintain. The success of the public site was the driving force around building the inhouse application. These small applications are what IBM has missed in the so called big picture. I built this site because it was needed and I could. Not because it met a particular price performance objective. What is going to happen when the Vendors begin refusing to make the changes to there COST products desired by the elected official. Last I heard we elected these folks to do these things and not be told how to do them. I've seen this kind of rhetoric in another office. That official is now retired. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA Great minds discuss Ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover Romanowski, John (OFT) To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: tate.ny.usSubject: Re: Another long slow decline. Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System [EMAIL PROTECTED] DU 11/06/2006 11:08 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System Hi Steve, By coincidence I recently used your county's online tax parcel web application, loved it, and was pleased to see it ran on VM. Sorry to hear it's going elsewhere. This e-mail, including any attachments, may be confidential, privileged or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-mail or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Another long slow decline. And so it begins, Management has decided after a year of thinking that the era of the mainframe is over here. The final I's are being doted, T's being crossed on a monster contract to replace our main application with a Computer Off The Shelf product. I love that acronym. COST or costs more is more to the point. I have read about more failed C/S system conversions
Re: Another long slow decline.
On top of that is back up power supply. We are increasing our UPS and other back up power supplies over the next several years. They wont look at what increasing the servers are doing to other requirements. They simply see the cost of the mainframe is x.They never see the cost of servers. As Steve pointed out, they likely dont even know the tco of servers. But that is not important. The mainframe is too expensive in their mind. The mainframe is too passe. duane At 02:25 PM 11/6/2006, you wrote: On Monday, 11/06/2006 at 01:43 EST, Duane Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The first issue is the philosophical issue that it can be done cheaper on client/server. Management refuses to look at the total cost of operation (TCO) of the client/server setup. Keep an eye on the horizon for the great equalizer: Power. When the electric company says No more power is available to this building and you have to build/buy a new building to house the ever-growing server farm, the price tag may generate some second thoughts. It might be educational to discover how close you are to the limits of your data centers. Some folks don't pay attention to electricity until too late. Not only does a discrete server consume power, it also gives off heat. The more racks you put in, the more cooling you need. And let's not forget the bigger UPS and generators, too. Of course, this is no way reduces the *desire* of some people to get off the mainframe. Just their ability. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: Another long slow decline.
- Original Message - From: Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:39 PM Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. ... Yet I can do anything they ask with in a reasonable time frame. ... It's been a joy to build and maintain... ... I built this site because it was needed and I could. Not because it met a particular price performance objective. What is going to happen when the Vendors begin refusing to make the changes to there COST products desired by the elected official... snip The additional cost of doing new things on VM is minimal as you can prototype something workable quickly. And you can add to it as it proves itself. And as it proves itself, it justifies more time spent. Incremental or grass roots development is one way to bring about new applications. It seems a way of the past. Management isn't interested in that model. They want a vendor to promise them something that they need, something forward looking. Something with all the features already in it (or at least all the features that YOUR company could possibly need ;-). Management doesn't want to be in the application development business. That is frequently a blind attitude, as IT can be a differentiator in the business world. (I wonder if that is less so in the government sector.) But as you and others have pointed out in this thread, the piper gets paid later. Unfortunately, once VM is gone there, it will be very difficult to justify bringing it back in for anything. The bridge will have been burnt. The vendors will have won. Paul Nieman PS. I sympathize with your stay or go dilemma.
Re: Another long slow decline.
If you believe you'll be cut, as you seem to say elsewhare in this thread : I now find my self in Catch 22. I can't leave since I make good money after 20 years on the job. The vendor takes over most of my skill set in a few months and I'm left waiting for the cut over to see my job cut as wel l. I could be bitter but I'm mostly disappointed that I achieved virtually a ll of management's requirements through the years only to be sent on my way to old to be marketable and to young to retire. then you need to consider what your house and pay-rate situation will be when you get cut (but without the benefit of the intervening time). Brian Nielsen On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:44:04 -0500, Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This would be an option if I wasn't knee deep into building a house in a real estate market that is falling. A house I really like and would enjo y living in. To go anywhere means leaving the area and potentially Florida . The biggest hurt would be a 50% salary cut that would be expected starti ng over after 20 years on the job. My catch 22. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA Great minds discuss Ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover [EMAIL PROTECTED] .gov Ray.Mrohs To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Sent by: The IBM cc: z/VM Operating Subject: Re: Another long slow decline. System [EMAIL PROTECTED] UARK.EDU 11/06/2006 01:36 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System Having been there myself, your best bet is to find yourself a new position ASAP. If they still need your services, they may be able to get you for a few hours a week at a nice hourly rate. Don't be a victim of their bad decision making - take advantage of it in every possible way. Ray Mrohs U.S. Department of Justice 202-307-6896 -Original Message- And so it begins, Management has decided after a year of thinking that the era of the mainframe is over here. The final I's are being doted, T's being crossed on a monster contract to replace our main application with a Computer Off The Shelf product. I love that acronym. COST or costs more is more to the point. I have read about more failed C/S system conversions based on the idea that the mainframe is Sooo.. expensive. My current operating budget is about $250,000/year and has a current operational life of about two more years giving a respectable $300,000/year operating cost over the 6 year operational plan. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA =
Re: Another long slow decline.
That's been my experience as well. Before working here at a state-funded U, I spent some 12 years in the private sector, at 3 large corporations, one financial, one telecom, and one energy. The degree of non-nonchalance in spending huge amounts of $$$ compared to the shoe-string budgets here at a public institution is staggering. It was a huge change of culture for me when I arrived here. Steve_Domarski/[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not wanting to mention the politics but it is a huge mistaken belief that privatizing government is efficient use of tax dollars. Not in this case. In the short and long term me and my associate could have rewritten the application using freeware from any number of platforms in the same time period that the vendor in planning to implement their custom solution. Mainframe not withstanding. Steve Domarski 352-368-8350 Property Appraisers Office Marion County Florida USA Great minds discuss Ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover
Re: Another long slow decline.
I agree with Colin in that the decline in mainframe usage is partly the herd wisdom picked up from the seatback airline magazines starting around 1990 +/-. The other part is that IBM has, once again, shot itself in the foot with software. There is a mindset in IBM that goes back, in my memory, to the bi-annual attempts to stabilize DOS and then DOS/VS to the early 1970's and convert everyone to big-OZ. That same mindset continued with SNA. SNA was and is a great architecture, but it wasn't and isn't the only way to communicate over a network. Couple that with the insistence that there there had to be an OS presence involved with the solution. First it was VSE/VTAM or VS1/VTAM VM/VTAM was shoved aside even tho there was a VM native solution. Now we are left with an MVS/XA remnant in GCS. Look, also, at IBM's mis-steps with OS/2. What a great operating system compared with MS Windows in the late '80's and thru the '90's! If development had continued, one can only imagine what it would be today. We too are on a get rid of the mainframe path, altho it has been going on for at least 10 years and will probably continue after my retirement which most likely will be in a couple of years. Jim Colin Allinson wrote: I think it is not just beginning but is well under way in most places. Part of this is a sort of 'religious belief' in the conventional wisdom that anything that is not a mainframe will be cheaper (more cost effective) and will run modern systems better. Any arguments to the contrary, no matter how well supported by facts, are immediately dismissed as being presented by those stuck in the past with a vested interest in retaining mainframes. It seems to be a case of 'everybody else is doing it so it must be right - don't confuse me with the facts'. Here, like many places, there is a definite plan to eliminate mainframes from the organisation at almost any cost. Luckily for me it will take longer than most places, because of heavy reliance on TPF for our core business, so I should see it to retirement. Having said all this I do agree with what Steve implies, IBM are not entirely blameless in this decline. 1. When the Z/series with IFL's was announced a subtle change in the emphasis would have made a huge difference. If this had been announced as primarily a shared LINUX server that had the additional benefit of **also** running legacy mainframe code then there is a chance it would not have been tarred with the mainframe brush. 2. Software pricing has long been the bane of mainframe economics (with some justification). It is perfectly true that development and support costs must be reclaimed but the argument for maintaining high software costs for products that are now stabilised / out of support is much harder to justify. We are currently going through a software cost reduction exercise and are looking at the most expensive products first. Some that are no longer current fall into this category so we have found free or reduced cost alternatives. If IBM had reduced the monthly cost for outdated products to a more reasonable figure then we would probably not have even questioned them - as it is we eliminate the product and both we and IBM lose. Colin Allinson (speaking for myself) -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
