Re: z/VM usability
My two cents worth: When I posted a while back asking whether anyone had used either Active D irectory or web services from VM -- no one had. I got several suggestions that I use Linu x as a front end. It makes me really sad, but I have to conclude that VM/CMS is NOT a good place to develop applications any more. CMS simply does not play well with others. We la ck basic tools like XML, Java, web services. Also Perl, Ruby, JSP, PHP. And so forth. No DB2 UDB. Thanks to WEBSHARE, we managed to extend the life of many CMS application s by webizing them. But that has run out of gas because we cannot talk to other applica tions -- and web applications here are expected to do that. It's really depressing having to tell people sorry, VM doesn't support that. They then ask why we even run VM anymore. New applications here have to be written in Java, so no new applications for CMS. When we did have a Java Virtual Machine in CMS, it stunk. I don't think there is any chance that customers will ever ask IBM to rev ive CMS. There are so many other platforms that promise to support more modern tools -- why should a nyone want to use a platform from a vendor that has shown no interest in keeping it up to dat e? Most of the tools are open source, so it is not like supporting them is so terribly expensive f or the other vendors. I think I could probably port XML tools and get web services working on C MS. But that's a lot of work to go to for a single application, or even a handful. I don't think that BofA would reward me for the work, alas. Someone asked about migration from CMS to Linux. We don't migrate applications. The other platforms (Windows, Linux, Solar is) are so different that our VM/CMS code has to be thrown away. There isn't any advantage to simpl y migrating, so we wait until there is some new requirement and start over. We do sometimes replace just part of an application system, and then FTP files back and forth. (The tendency is t o leave overnight batch jobs on CMS.) In one of our earlier attempts to migrate to Unix, we installed DB2 on VM , to allow applications to be migrated from NOMAD to a real database, as a stage in migration. Quite frankly, the only way IBM could help us to migrate to Linux would b e by installing Java, DB2- UDB, XML tools, web services tools, etc. on CMS. That would allow staged migration to the new environment. It's too hard to pick up a whole application system and move it all at once. The only environment that is easy to migrate to from VM/CMS is z/OS. z/OS can have NOMAD, REXX, TSO Pipelines, the same compilers, the same EBCDIC character set, e tc. I don't see migration to z/OS happening here, probably because it is too expensive. We don't have TSO Pipelines, and have removed NOMAD from z/OS. (Some applications were even migrated from z/OS to z/VM when NOMAD was removed fro z/OS.) If we had Java on z/VM, s o that we could first convert the code to Java and test on CMS, there might be more migration t o z/OS. Alan Ackerman Alan (dot) Ackerman (at) Bank of America (dot) com
Re: z/VM usability
5.2 - though for the life of me, I was thinking I received a DVD of 5.3 with no tape release. Perhaps I confused 5.1 and 5.2. Anything is possible this week- 15 projects to do and only me to do 'em. :) -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Walter Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:25 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability Good luck on upgrading z/VM from 4.4 to 5.3 on Memorial Day weekend. z/VM 5.3 does not reach General Availability until June 29, 2007. See: http://www-306.ibm.com/common/ssi/fcgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=ansubtype=caa ppname=GPAhtmlfid=897/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@89@ (Now THERE is a URL that looks like a masked curse word!). Or... maybe this is a long term contract, set for Memorial Day weekend 2008? :-) Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 05/12/2007 08:12 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM usability grin Speaking of strange an Intuitive - I have a small contract open for an Austin VM'er, if there are any here besides me. ;) Bascially mentoring/emergency backup on upgrading and optimizing z/VM 5.3 as an upgrade from 4.4. Probably have to do it over the Memorial Day weekend though, due to service commitments. Anyone interested and in the area, drop me a line! -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Thornton Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 5:14 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability On May 12, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Rob van der Heij wrote: On 5/12/07, Adam Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, except by its also being called $OUTPUT_AUTOFLUSH, I mean. Strange... I would have thought the problem was that it was blocking its input, not the output... That's because you have not surrendered to the intuitiveness that is Perl. Adam The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
Re: z/VM usability
On 5/8/07, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) As I said: leaky garden hose. The analogy holds just as long as you use terms like nice * CMS Pipelines has multi stream pipelines which means that you can divert part of the input stream and have that go through a different segment of the pipeline and further down the pipe the streams can join again when desired. The closest you get in UNIX is something like the tee program. * The stages in CMS Pipelines are not limited by a single input and output (and stderr), but can have many streams which allows for building complex refineries without the need for endless copies of the data. * The way records are moving through the pipeline and the way stages interact means that you can reason about where records are and guarantee the order in which data is produced and consumed in parallel pipeline segments. * Dynamic changes to the topology of the pipeline where a stage can replace itself by a newly composed segment either permanently or temporary (a sipping pipeline). Combined with the strict order in which data is consumed, you control what part of the data flows through the modified pipeline. I do believe I am one of those many VM people who embraced Linux and the concepts are not alien to me (I avoid the term transition because that would suggest going from one to the other). Recently I wrote a simple Perl program - ptime - to take lines from stdin and write them out prefixed with the local time. To my surprise the following did not work to tag vmstat output with the time as I intended: vmstat 10 | ptime Turns out that something is doing an undetermined amount of buffering (and yes, I learned that I can set the $| variable (?) to change that). And there's many more cases where the tools violate the Principe of Least Astonishment. Things like njpipes and OS/2 pipe ran short of that and turned out to be far less useful. I understand I have the option to write a C program from scratch to do what I want, or maybe copy an old one from when I wanted almost the same. We've done so with Rexx for quite some time. However, I find it way more productive to compose a pipeline out of many built-in stages and maybe a few reusable ones from myself in Rexx. Rob
Re: z/VM usability
Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) This is an interesting topic: *IX fans are always horrified (at least, at first) by CMS Pipelines, I think mostly because since Pipes isn't part of the OS, you have to *gasp* enter a SEPARATE COMMAND to use them. That's obviously a nit in the scheme of things, but reflects one of the philosophical differences between the two worlds. *IX has been described as an environment with a lot of little tools that you glue (or maybe duct tape) together; CMS is an environment with larger tools that often don't play together so well. CMS Pipes bridges a lot of that gap, but (I suspect) since the *IX fans like their paradigm, they see it as a kludge. Which, in a way, it is. OTOH, we VMers look at *IX and say What kind of OS has awk AND sed AND Perl AND all these obscure little things like 'wc' and 'tr' and 'uniq' and and and...? It feels kludgy and awkward (no pun intended) to have so many overlapping functions. So maybe this is an agree to disagree deal -- the two camps may never really come together fully. I look forward to others' thoughts on this topic! ObAnecdote: 25 or so years ago, back at UofW, we had basic Pipe commands built into CMS: , , and at least. They were not a great success; whether this was due to the lack of the 273 other functions (wc et al.) or due to a difference in OS philosophy I'm not sure. ...phsiii
Re: z/VM usability
No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) As I said: leaky garden hose. The analogy holds just as long as you use terms like nice Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with you for some reason. * CMS Pipelines has multi stream pipelines which means that you can divert part of the input stream and have that go through a different segment of the pipeline and further down the pipe the streams can join again when desired. The closest you get in UNIX is something like the tee program. There is a reason for this in UNIX - most system utilties are built to do one or two things as well as possible, and that rather simple mindset leads to a single in / single out design prejudice. It does not mean they capability does not exist. For example, I have many mulitple input streams sending data to a named pipe, which has a director application reading from it, which sends things out of dynamically created streams of processing. For example, Job#1 may come down the pipe and need to be processed in Chinese, while Job#2 coming down the pipe may need to br printed in some other state, and Job#3 is credit card transaction. I did write the director application in C, but it could have been written just as well in Perl or Rexx or Pascal or Fortran for that matter. Granted, this is not a super high volume transactional system (it processed between 100 adn 200 jobs per minute) but if I needed that, I would use CICS. * The stages in CMS Pipelines are not limited by a single input and output (and stderr), but can have many streams which allows for building complex refineries without the need for endless copies of the data. * The way records are moving through the pipeline and the way stages interact means that you can reason about where records are and guarantee the order in which data is produced and consumed in parallel pipeline segments. This is more program design to me than a natural or intrinsic function of Pipes, but that's not a fact that is my opinion. :) * Dynamic changes to the topology of the pipeline where a stage can replace itself by a newly composed segment either permanently or temporary (a sipping pipeline). Combined with the strict order in which data is consumed, you control what part of the data flows through the modified pipeline. Again, this iis quite easily accomplished under Unix - though I admit the best solution tends to start a new process or thread, which is somewhat different. Then I think that process creation is more expensive under VM than under Linux. Opinion again though, I might be wrong. I do believe I am one of those many VM people who embraced Linux and the concepts are not alien to me (I avoid the term transition because that would suggest going from one to the other). Recently I wrote a simple Perl program - ptime - to take lines from stdin and write them out prefixed with the local time. To my surprise the following did not work to tag vmstat output with the time as I intended: vmstat 10 | ptime Turns out that something is doing an undetermined amount of buffering (and yes, I learned that I can set the $| variable (?) to change that). And there's many more cases where the tools violate the Principe of Least Astonishment. Things like njpipes and OS/2 pipe ran short of that and turned out to be far less useful. That kind of surprises me- though in this case I would most likely have written a short C program to do it and used fflush(). It seems silly that Perl did not automatically account for the buffering. There are other things that can drive you crazy too - like ever try to get a reasonable return code? Try sending back a -4 as the exit code on a program sometime. Annoying! There are certainly lots of rough edges in UNIX/Linux, but there are more than a few there in CMS too, most especially if you do not use it on a very regular basis. Sometimes, the problems in Linux are enough to make me scream and really REALLY miss JCL. -Paul I understand I have the option to write a C program from scratch to do what I want, or maybe copy an old one from when I wanted almost the same. We've done so with Rexx for quite some time. However, I find it way more productive to compose a pipeline out of many built-in stages and maybe a few reusable ones from myself in Rexx. Rob
Re: z/VM usability
A great summation Phil, and accurate. VM (and z/OS) are *comfortable* environments, because almost everything you can do you can only do one or two ways, and they are usually pretty darn well documented. In business, this is a *wonderful* thing. :) In UNIX, if there are not at least 5 different ways to do something, it is because nobody anywhere has ever gotten interested in doing it. And the documentaton is usually either very sloppy, or in a lot of cases, here just is not any documentation at all. Well, perhaps, there is a usage section in the code that will display a little help. The core idea of pipes in Unix was driven by, of all things - economics. To get the authorization to develop the system at the old Bell Labs, Kerningham, Ritchie, and company sold UNIX as a text processing system for the copyright or patent department. (I forget which.) This was on an old DEC PDP system which very limited memory. Much more limited memory than an IBM mainframe of the day. To allow multiple users to use the system, they *had* to keep the programs tiny and sort of stitch them together. Duct tape can fix almost anything I suppose. In any event, the nroff/troff system, which is a full fledged typesetting system, also derived from this, and so forth and so on. And since input was on an ASR-33 teletype machine (imagine wordprocessing on one of those beasties!) the names of the utilities were kept short because nobody liked typing in those days. In fact, in those days, some programmers felt it was beneath their dignity to learn to type, since that was what clerks and secretaries did. I had a guy who worked for me give me that line as late as 1987! And underneath all that, the *real* reason was to keep the computer on site - since all the other ones like the GE GECOS monster the PDP replaced, were pretty expensive. So to have a computer to develop their ideas on, the scientists went all out for text processing. AWK came of this as well- with the initials of the three developers making up the program name. The contention that it is AWKward to use or AWKward to learn is purely a coincidence. grin And I have a nice bridge to sell too. VM on the mainframe however, was being driven from different motivations. Perhaps someone here will share and contrast those reasona and activites for us. ---BeginMessage--- Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) This is an interesting topic: *IX fans are always horrified (at least, at first) by CMS Pipelines, I think mostly because since Pipes isn't part of the OS, you have to *gasp* enter a SEPARATE COMMAND to use them. That's obviously a nit in the scheme of things, but reflects one of the philosophical differences between the two worlds. *IX has been described as an environment with a lot of little tools that you glue (or maybe duct tape) together; CMS is an environment with larger tools that often don't play together so well. CMS Pipes bridges a lot of that gap, but (I suspect) since the *IX fans like their paradigm, they see it as a kludge. Which, in a way, it is. OTOH, we VMers look at *IX and say What kind of OS has awk AND sed AND Perl AND all these obscure little things like 'wc' and 'tr' and 'uniq' and and and...? It feels kludgy and awkward (no pun intended) to have so many overlapping functions. So maybe this is an agree to disagree deal -- the two camps may never really come together fully. I look forward to others' thoughts on this topic! ObAnecdote: 25 or so years ago, back at UofW, we had basic Pipe commands built into CMS: , , and at least. They were not a great success; whether this was due to the lack of the 273 other functions (wc et al.) or due to a difference in OS philosophy I'm not sure. ...phsiii ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
Try Melinda Varian's history of VM at http://www.princeton.edu/~melinda/25paper.pdf Regards, Richard Schuh VM on the mainframe however, was being driven from different motivations. Perhaps someone here will share and contrast those reasona and activites for us.
Re: z/VM usability
--- David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone written a third party OS that can easily replace CMS? None are easy replacements, but IMHO there are several possible candidates: MUSIC Linux Solaris (coming soon) Only MUSIC is really CMS-like. The other two are obvious Unix derivatives, and would require retooling or emulation of the CMS DIAG API. Music is availble for download from :- http://www.geocities.com/sim390/ but I am not sure if you can run this version on real hardware. Some one else mentioned the original VM/370 CMS. This won't run on modern hardware as its strictly 370 mode only and is pretty primitive in many ways. Its limited to original 800 byte blocked file system so no FBA devices and very small minidisks for CMS. None of the things that make CMS what it is today. No full screen input (diag58), no IUCV, no REXX (or even EXEC2), and no XEDIT/FILELIST etc etc. Perhaps a better way would be to enhance Don Higgins Z390 (www.z390.org) tool so it would generate real object decks, and have some way of gluing that directly into CP There is also Wylbur and MTS. as far as I know neither MTS is not available but Super Wylbur might be at cost. e are available at present. However assuming VM is to continue then we we will probably be forced into using whatever IBM supply to maintain it... Linux would be consistent with other things going on in the industry and inside IBM, and Solaris would ...well, just be weird. The key bit would be the presence of REXX and Pipes, IMHO. The other external commands could be built on a piece-by-piece basis, but there's a lot of logic for CMS users that really depends on those two parts. Dave. Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
Re: z/VM usability
On 5/8/07, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with you for some reason. I was being polite too, as we all are on this list. There is nothing sore about this with me, but I consider myself a bit more knowledgeable than you on the capabilities of CMS Pipelines. So I decided to correct you. I did not expect to teach you CMS Pipelines with my post. Rob
Re: z/VM usability
Well Rob - I maanged pretty much to buy, install, and bring up our zSeries here with z/VM and Linux, with only a few little gotcha's here and there. And keep it running for near on four years now. I'm not an IBM Systems Programmer, but I do resemble one at times. If you are in the Austin area sometime, let me know and I'll buy you a beer. I expect I know a bit more about UNIX than you do, so maybe we can trade. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- On 5/8/07, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well- I was being polite, since this is pretty obviously a sore subject with you for some reason. I was being polite too, as we all are on this list. There is nothing sore about this with me, but I consider myself a bit more knowledgeable than you on the capabilities of CMS Pipelines. So I decided to correct you. I did not expect to teach you CMS Pipelines with my post. Rob ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
Alan Altmark wrote: Well, it's been nigh on 40 years that CMS has been around. Seems like a committment to me. CMS is here to stay. If all the people with z/OS get z/VM and [re]discover CMS, who knows what might happen? Never say die! re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007j.html#41 z/VM usability well, cms (as in cambridge monitor system) started on cp40 (cambridge had gotten a 360/40 and did the hardware modifications to implement virtual memory ... pending getting 360/67) ... cambridge then got 360/67 and morphed cp40 into cp67 ... so it has been 40yrs (in part, CMS work could even start on real 360/40 before cp40 was operational) from Melinda's history http://www.princeton.edu/~melinda/ By September of 1965, file system commands and macros already looked much like those we are familiar with today: ``RDBUF'', ``WRBUF'', ``FINIS'', ``STATE'', etc ... snip ... cambridge installed cp67 out at lincoln labs in 1967 and then last week in jan68 came out to install cp67 at the univ where i was undergraduate. Note, that in jan68, the cp67 people were still apprehensive about CMS filesystem ... with cp67 source, assemble, and build still being done on os/360 (keeping cp67 kernel build TXT files in card tray and modify/assemble routine, punch new TXT file, update that file in the card tray and rebuild kernel by doing IPL of real cards). in the morph of cp67 to vm370 ... they changed the cms name to conversational monitor system. major change in cms from cp67 to vm370 was a little re-arranging of cms kernel in anticipation of 370 (r/o) segment protection. However, in doing the virtual memory hardware retrofit to 370/165 ... they ran into problem with schedule slipping. In order to regain six months in the schedule for 370/165 virtual memory, they dropped r/o segment protect and some number of other features from the original 370 virtual memory architecture (and to have compatibility across the 370 product line ... the same features had to also be removed from other 370 models that already had implemented the full 370 virtual memory architecture). With 370 hardware r/o segment protect dropped ... vm370 had to revert to the page protect hack used by cp67 that involved fiddling the 360 storage protect keys. Then during the future system period ... much of the corporation was distracted and a lot of 370 product activity fell by the way side. Misc. past posts about future system: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys I had made some unflattering comments about practicallity of future system stuff and continued to do both cp67 and cms enhancements ... and then ported them from cp67 to vm370 ... some old email http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430 after FS was canceled, there was rush to get stuff back into 370 product pipeline. Part of this was reason that small subset of the virtual memory management enhancements ... a lot of shared segment stuff http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#adcon that had been integrated with the paged mapped filesystem stuff http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#mmap was released as DCSS in vm370 release 3. Canceling FS contributed to enabling me to also release the resource manager (that included a lot of changes that were in cp67 that i had done ... which were dropped in the morph from cp67 to vm370) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairshare http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#wsclock It was also in the aftermath of killing FS that POK convinced the corporation to kill the vm370 product, shutdown the vm370 product group and move all the people to POK to help accelerate the mvs/xa development schedule (again attempting to make up lost time in 370 product pipeline resulting from the FS distraction). Eventually Endicott was able to salvage the vm370 product mission.
Re: z/VM usability
By business as usual, I mean that IBM continually withdraws products from the marketplace, even some that people are using. Granted. IBM has that privilege, no argument. We rarely force you to change your mind on these issues (at least where it really counted, somebody took a risk continuing VM development, with obvious results). It's sad to accept that CMS won't be the application hosting solution in the future -- I think it's a mistake, but like Mike Walter, this is a battle we probably can't win, and pretty much it won't be a win to try. So what do we do? It's true that if there is no replacement product from IBM, and no 3rd-party substitute, then, yes, the application is eventually re-hosted or discontinued completely. And sometimes on a non-IBM, non-Linux platform. IBM makes the decisions it makes and has to live with the consequences. I think the best mitigation for those consequences would be to provide some type of migration aid. So, I'd really like to turn the discussion back to the original question: what do we need and how do we get from the existing CMS-based environment to a new environment?
Re: z/VM usability
Has anyone written a third party OS that can easily replace CMS? I mean, CMS, despite being tightly integrated to all things VM, is in the final analysis, just another Host OS isn't it? Surely over 40 years someone has written something that can be used to replace it, perhaps something open source? -Paul ---BeginMessage--- By business as usual, I mean that IBM continually withdraws products from the marketplace, even some that people are using. Granted. IBM has that privilege, no argument. We rarely force you to change your mind on these issues (at least where it really counted, somebody took a risk continuing VM development, with obvious results). It's sad to accept that CMS won't be the application hosting solution in the future -- I think it's a mistake, but like Mike Walter, this is a battle we probably can't win, and pretty much it won't be a win to try. So what do we do? It's true that if there is no replacement product from IBM, and no 3rd-party substitute, then, yes, the application is eventually re-hosted or discontinued completely. And sometimes on a non-IBM, non-Linux platform. IBM makes the decisions it makes and has to live with the consequences. I think the best mitigation for those consequences would be to provide some type of migration aid. So, I'd really like to turn the discussion back to the original question: what do we need and how do we get from the existing CMS-based environment to a new environment? ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
It's sad to accept that CMS won't be the application hosting solution in the future -- I think it's a mistake, but like Mike Walter, this is a battle we probably can't win, and pretty much it won't be a win to try. So what do we do? Well, I think I just said that I won't be around for the battle. But here's what we CAN do (and what I've been suggesting on and off since the year 2000)... ... show the Linux techs who are moving to run servers under VM what we an do with REXX, CMS Pipelines, XEDIT, and any other number of great productive development (and **production**) tools. While they are being exposed, exploit a simple TCPIP connection between the Linux guest to pump data from the Linux server to CMS - where it can quickly and efficiently be processed, sending the result back to the Linux server via TCPIP. Let CMS be a server, too! Build it and they won't come. Show them how it makes their lives easier and they WILL come -- lowering their TCO and buying more mainframe mips, too. z/VM is a collection of fabulous tools. Use the best tool for the job at hand, sometimes: CMS. Mike Walter Hewitt Associates Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 05/07/2007 10:33 AM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM usability By business as usual, I mean that IBM continually withdraws products from the marketplace, even some that people are using. Granted. IBM has that privilege, no argument. We rarely force you to change your mind on these issues (at least where it really counted, somebody took a risk continuing VM development, with obvious results). It's sad to accept that CMS won't be the application hosting solution in the future -- I think it's a mistake, but like Mike Walter, this is a battle we probably can't win, and pretty much it won't be a win to try. So what do we do? It's true that if there is no replacement product from IBM, and no 3rd-party substitute, then, yes, the application is eventually re-hosted or discontinued completely. And sometimes on a non-IBM, non-Linux platform. IBM makes the decisions it makes and has to live with the consequences. I think the best mitigation for those consequences would be to provide some type of migration aid. So, I'd really like to turn the discussion back to the original question: what do we need and how do we get from the existing CMS-based environment to a new environment? The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
Re: z/VM usability
Has anyone written a third party OS that can easily replace CMS? None are easy replacements, but IMHO there are several possible candidates: MUSIC Linux Solaris (coming soon) Only MUSIC is really CMS-like. The other two are obvious Unix derivatives, and would require retooling or emulation of the CMS DIAG API. Linux would be consistent with other things going on in the industry and inside IBM, and Solaris would ...well, just be weird. The key bit would be the presence of REXX and Pipes, IMHO. The other external commands could be built on a piece-by-piece basis, but there's a lot of logic for CMS users that really depends on those two parts.
Re: z/VM usability
Build it and they won't come. Show them how it makes their lives easier and they WILL come -- lowering their TCO and buying more mainframe mips, too. z/VM is a collection of fabulous tools. Use the best tool for the job at hand, sometimes: CMS. Mike Walter A prime example of doing just that is the System Management Application Programming Interface server, which has been available for last few years. All of the facilities needed for creating and managing a collection of Linux application servers under VM are available to a client program running in Linux or even on Windows. The SMAPI server distributes control of your running Linux servers and allows cloning of new servers using your choice of VM:Secure or DIRMAINT directory managers. All the pieces run on CMS. It's a great place to run servers! Bob Bolch
Re: z/VM usability
Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. The biggest darn problem is that Linux is not very efficient compared to CMS (or mvs, z/.OS, OS/390, etc.) which was written with the IBM arch. in mind, and probably in assembler to boot. Linux is quite capable and fast on a zSeries machine, but not as fast as or anywhere near as efficient as CMS. Music is pretty good I suppose. -Paul ---BeginMessage--- Has anyone written a third party OS that can easily replace CMS? None are easy replacements, but IMHO there are several possible candidates: MUSIC Linux Solaris (coming soon) Only MUSIC is really CMS-like. The other two are obvious Unix derivatives, and would require retooling or emulation of the CMS DIAG API. Linux would be consistent with other things going on in the industry and inside IBM, and Solaris would ...well, just be weird. The key bit would be the presence of REXX and Pipes, IMHO. The other external commands could be built on a piece-by-piece basis, but there's a lot of logic for CMS users that really depends on those two parts. ---End Message---
Re: z/VM usability
Umm... that's Mark Hessling. Paul Raulerson wrote: Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. The biggest darn problem is that Linux is not very efficient compared to CMS (or mvs, z/.OS, OS/390, etc.) which was written with the IBM arch. in mind, and probably in assembler to boot. Linux is quite capable and fast on a zSeries machine, but not as fast as or anywhere near as efficient as CMS. Music is pretty good I suppose. -Paul -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2007 - Green Bay, WI - May 18-22, 2007
Re: z/VM usability
On 5/7/07, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. We're told Linux was so much more suitable because of the tools available and was so much more intuitive to the new generation of systems people. I fail to see what problem we solve by writing system automation using Regina and THE because it will not be easier to maintain or enhance for people used to Perl. Compared to CMS Pipelines, UNIX pipes are a leaky garden hose. In a CMS Pipelines introduction class, people are already beyond the capabilities of UNIX pipes by the time of the first coffee break. Your suggestion that it's roughly equivalent suggest to me you never bothered to look at CMS Pipelines. Rob
Re: z/VM usability
On Mon, 7 May 2007 13:20:43 -0400, George Haddad wrote: Before I ever used VM a company where I worked had timeshare accounts at NCSS using VP/CSS. Except for the personal disk being P instead of A, it resembled CP/CMS quite a bit. I wonder if that ever got open-sourced? For that matter, are the public domain versions of VM/370 fair game for modification? Paul Raulerson wrote: Has anyone written a third party OS that can easily replace CMS? I mean, CMS, despite being tightly integrated to all things VM, is in the final analysis, just another Host OS isn't it? Surely over 40 years someone has written something that can be used to replace it, perhaps something open source? -Paul As one of the former maintainers of VP/CSS I can state no it never got open sourced. It died before open source really got started. Lloyd
Re: z/VM usability
Yep, it is Mark indeed. My mistake. I should not type at work. :) -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Smrcina Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:15 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability Umm... that's Mark Hessling. Paul Raulerson wrote: Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. The biggest darn problem is that Linux is not very efficient compared to CMS (or mvs, z/.OS, OS/390, etc.) which was written with the IBM arch. in mind, and probably in assembler to boot. Linux is quite capable and fast on a zSeries machine, but not as fast as or anywhere near as efficient as CMS. Music is pretty good I suppose. -Paul -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2007 - Green Bay, WI - May 18-22, 2007
Re: z/VM usability
No, I have looked, and CMS Pipelines are nice indeed. But then so are pipes under UNIX; indeed, pipes are the very core of UNIX. If you are not annoyed by discussing it, I would love to hear your opinions on what is so primitive about UNIX. :) Linux is more suitable in many ways; but that has a caveat - it depends of course, on exactly what you are doing. For example, Linux (or UNIX) in the raw character oriented mode is very *very* much like CMS with a bunch of different commands. And UNIX is much nicer to code C programs in that is VM. grin But what would you expect? It was designed around C! It was also designed to do text processing, and even today, it does that very well. Still can drive typesetters in fact. Perl is a nice language - but so is REXX - and if you are using THE editor, REXX is much cleaner than Perl. But along with Perl and REXX, you have about six thousand other scripting languages you can use - everything from basic sh scripts to TCL/TK and beyond. If you are a VM'er, the transition to Linux/UNIX is not as painful as you might think. I never did system admin on VM, and only a very small amount of development, while the opposite is true under UNIX. The opposite is also true under OS/390 or z/OS) That probably warps my perceptive a bit, but not that much. Well, I do admit to excessive nervousness when I have to make changes in VM these days though. (I have to act like a System Prog for VM. :) Anyway, I'd love to have a discussion about that. -Paul -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob van der Heij Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 2:17 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability On 5/7/07, Paul Raulerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well - Linux works now, and can talk to all the CP services. Linux also comes with Rexx (Regina), XEdit (THE Editor from Tim Hessling), and pipes that are roughly equivalent to CMS Pipelines. Named pipes and message queues and such are all available and under Linux and Solaris, very heavily used. We're told Linux was so much more suitable because of the tools available and was so much more intuitive to the new generation of systems people. I fail to see what problem we solve by writing system automation using Regina and THE because it will not be easier to maintain or enhance for people used to Perl. Compared to CMS Pipelines, UNIX pipes are a leaky garden hose. In a CMS Pipelines introduction class, people are already beyond the capabilities of UNIX pipes by the time of the first coffee break. Your suggestion that it's roughly equivalent suggest to me you never bothered to look at CMS Pipelines. Rob
Re: z/VM usability
I'm currently engaged in moving a bunch of things from VM/CMS to Linux. Most of it is written in Rexx with a lot of Pipelines. The Rexx part has proved to be pretty easy -- ooRexx is mostly compatible and mostly an improvement. The Pipeline part is a lot tougher. Writing something that does the basics of what CMS Pipelines does is pretty simple (been there, done that, got the t-shirt about 5 years ago). The problem is getting it to perform and getting it to do all the clever stuff that CMS Pipelines does. That's what messes you up. (I keep thinking I should revisit this stuff and recode it in C# as a learning exercise...) Actually, a CMS shell that ran under Linux would be pretty neat. Now there is a project for someone who wants to learn C#... just let me finish re-installing my iBook, getting Bacula to work, fixing the server that I messed up the other week, trying to get MS Windows to boot under Xen... shame the boss wouldn't sponsor me to do this... ah well... -- Rod (who heartily seconds what Mike Walter said)
Re: z/VM usability
Actually, a CMS shell that ran under Linux would be pretty neat. Now there is a project for someone who wants to learn C#... just let me finish re-installing my iBook, getting Bacula to work, fixing the server that I messed up the other week, trying to get MS Windows to boot under Xen... shame the boss wouldn't sponsor me to do this... ah well... I guess in some ways we have turned the world upside down. When IBM owned the PC platform it made products like the XT/370 and AT/370 that allowed you to run real CMS, not just a CMS shell on a PC That included REXX and XEDIT but not sure if PIPES would have run. Then we had the P/370 and P/390 cards that allowed you to run a whole OS on a PC. Now IBM is supressing Mainframe code on the PC and getting us to run LINUX images on VM and wants us to do our personal computing Linux on VM, and stops licensing for any 370 the PC platform. On the other hand what goes round comes round, and if you think of Linux as the main OS its licensing is similar to the orignal VM/370. I know there is no commercial value in it, so it won't happen, but wouldn't it be nice if IBM realeased a software emulation that worked like the original XT/370 that emulated both the Hardware and CP calls and so would allow CMS itself to be run native on Linux or Windows... .. oh and of course would license CMS for such an environment.. In fact I think this is what Roger Bowler originally intended for Hercules... -- Rod (who heartily seconds what Mike Walter said) Dave Wade __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: z/VM usability
On Thursday, 05/03/2007 at 07:35 EST, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, no new pipelines stages. That's simply b.splease see Rob van der Heij's What's New with CMS Pipelines presentation from the zExpo last month. There are at least 5 new Pipes stages that have been introduced and others are on the way. You're right, Dave, I was using hyperbole to make a point (damn that Chuckie): there are few new stages. No, no new PL/I compiler. They are also nothing to sneeze at considering those investments are being made at a time when z/VM's value to IBM is its ability to compete in the virtual server arena. As soon as the market signals its willingness to substitute CMS application development where it currently says large scale virtualization, then you will get dizzy as we swing the development engine to focus on CMS. As long as it keeps selling new hardware. But the market will not signal it's willingness until it sees that IBM (the owner of CMS after all) is committed to the platform and that they can be sure it will be around for awhile. Why invest time and money if IBM is not willing to do so.especially if the development community knows that, e.g., there are versions of the new z/OS PL/I compilers that are available for CMS, but IBM chooses not to release them for that environment.? Well, it's been nigh on 40 years that CMS has been around. Seems like a committment to me. CMS is here to stay. If all the people with z/OS get z/VM and [re]discover CMS, who knows what might happen? Never say die! Your post gives the impression that we have a new PL/I compiler sitting here on CMS that we don't want to ship. If such a thing exists, I've never seen it or heard of it. And you'd be wrong, with all do respect...that is not the feed back I am getting from my young, recent college graduate that I am teaching VM to these days. Once they get past the 3270 hurdles, they think the CMS environment is wy cool. And the way to get them past the 3270 hurdles is to simply demo to them that the 3270 interface is *exactly* like filling in a form on a web browser...you can only type in certain areas, and nothing happens until you click on the 'submit button...they grok that right away. I said what *I'd* do, having spent nearly 30 years programming on keypunches, 2741s and 3270s. OTOH, if I'm going to be a sysprog, then I'd much rather do that on z (VM, please) with my trusty 3270. [Please forgive me. I'm not a fan of SCRIPT/VS, either. I prefer WYSIWYG document editors.] I think their grass is greener than mine The place CMS really shines is as a scripting tool. That was a major motivation for the ldap client programs and is what is driving the demand for snmp and ssh clients. Requirements that deal with this aspect of CMS have a much better chance, I think, of being satisfied. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM usability
I'm currently engaged in moving a bunch of things from VM/CMS to Linux. Most of it is written in Rexx with a lot of Pipelines. The Rexx part has proved to be pretty easy -- ooRexx is mostly compatible and mostly an improvement. The Pipeline part is a lot tougher. I sure wish CMS Pipelines could be ported to Linux (and Mac OS X, for that matter; ooRexx works there as well). I miss Xedit, but THE is almost as good and works pretty well with ooRexx. THE lacks update support, which would be a big help, but I'm sure that would be a complicated thing to implement. Actually, a CMS shell that ran under Linux would be pretty neat. There is always a Linux replacement for a VM/CMS feature, but often it isn't nearly as nice. A lot of times rethinking something from the CMS way to the Linux way helps, but sometimes not. Some things are actually easier with Linux. I wish IBM had done some things differently 10 years ago.
Re: z/VM usability
barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So question: If there was a web/browser interface on z/vm that would support a complete interactive CMS environment, would that be of interest? It's not that difficult (says the guy that tells other people to do the work). We already take 3270 CMS applications and run them with a web interface on z/VM. The real question is what applications would installations really want to build on CMS and would giving them a browser interfact for this help or be a waste of resources? First, Yes - it would be of interest. Now comes the difficult bit - we have had a full function web interface (not yours I am afraid) for some years now but it has never taken off because of the effort of webifying legacy applications. We have only a couple of applications that are written for it. Part of this may be down to the particular web interface we use where the controls for implementing a new application seem like a black art. Mainly this is because most applications are created by users and this would need to be much easier for them to do. Now, if there was a web interface that could allow users to log on provide a general purpose CMS interface that was nice to use and, at the same time, handle fullscreen interfaces from legacy applications (mainly DMS/CMS full screen xedit but also ISPF, fullscreen CMS IOS3270) then we would be talking. With best regards / mit den besten Grüßen, Colin G Allinson Technical Manager VM Amadeus Data Processing GmbH T +49 (0) 8122-43 49 75 F +49 (0) 8122-43 32 60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.amadeus.com IMPORTANT - CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity shown above as addressees . It may contain information which is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable laws . If the reader of this transmission is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, printing, distribution, copying, disclosure or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail or using the address below and delete the message and any attachments from your system . Amadeus Data Processing GmbH Geschäftsführer: Eberhard Haag Sitz der Gesellschaft: Erding HR München 48 199 Berghamer Strasse 6 85435 Erding Germany
Re: z/VM usability
Hi, Alan. Thanks for taking the time to respond in an intelligent and thoughtful manner to my rather ranting-style post. I appreciate it. Alan Altmark wrote: On Thursday, 05/03/2007 at 07:35 EST, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, no new pipelines stages. That's simply b.splease see Rob van der Heij's What's New with CMS Pipelines presentation from the zExpo last month. There are at least 5 new Pipes stages that have been introduced and others are on the way. You're right, Dave, I was using hyperbole to make a point (damn that Chuckie): there are few new stages. And how many time have we told you *not* to use big words like hyperbole or sophisticated literary devices like similes and metaphors; you're dealing with VM-ers here, after all..;-) No, no new PL/I compiler. They are also nothing to sneeze at considering those investments are being made at a time when z/VM's value to IBM is its ability to compete in the virtual server arena. As soon as the market signals its willingness to substitute CMS application development where it currently says large scale virtualization, then you will get dizzy as we swing the development engine to focus on CMS. As long as it keeps selling new hardware. But the market will not signal it's willingness until it sees that IBM (the owner of CMS after all) is committed to the platform and that they can be sure it will be around for awhile. Why invest time and money if IBM is not willing to do so.especially if the development community knows that, e.g., there are versions of the new z/OS PL/I compilers that are available for CMS, but IBM chooses not to release them for that environment.? Well, it's been nigh on 40 years that CMS has been around. Seems like a committment to me. CMS is here to stay. If all the people with z/OS get z/VM and [re]discover CMS, who knows what might happen? Never say die! While IBM Endicott may have been committed to CMS for 40 years, the rest of IBM certainly has not followed suit. The decision to move away from OfficeVison to Notes by IBM certainly did not give the VM base the warm fuzzies, among the other things IBM has done over the years to, if not kill BVM of explicitly, at least deemphasis it considerably. These actions are noted by both the end users and the ISVs when they start making new product development plans and allocating software budgets. Your post gives the impression that we have a new PL/I compiler sitting here on CMS that we don't want to ship. If such a thing exists, I've never seen it or heard of it. Not so much a case of IBM having a new version of PL/I for CMS just sitting on a shelf somewhere and not being shipped as a case that the PL/I compiler team uses CMS in it's development and a version for that environment could be made available with very little additional effort. Having such an updated PL/I compiler, with the many new features and functions that have been introduced since the current compiler for VM (PL/I for MVS and VM, 5688-235) was made available, would be a real boon to the ISVs who use PL/I. I think their grass is greener than mine The place CMS really shines is as a scripting tool. That was a major motivation for the ldap client programs and is what is driving the demand for snmp and ssh clients. Requirements that deal with this aspect of CMS have a much better chance, I think, of being satisfied. You're correct as far as you go with that statement, AlanCMS is a great scripting tool environment, which also makes it a great place do to real application development and deployment as well. Have a good weekend, too. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott -- DJ V/Soft
Re: z/VM usability
On Friday, 05/04/2007 at 10:45 EST, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And how many time have we told you *not* to use big words like hyperbole or sophisticated literary devices like similes and metaphors; you're dealing with VM-ers here, after all..;-) Erudite VMers, of course. Erudite. ;-) While IBM Endicott may have been committed to CMS for 40 years, the rest of IBM certainly has not followed suit. The decision to move away from OfficeVison to Notes by IBM certainly did not give the VM base the warm fuzzies, among the other things IBM has done over the years to, if not kill BVM of explicitly, at least deemphasis it considerably. These actions are noted by both the end users and the ISVs when they start making new product development plans and allocating software budgets. But, you know, IBM Corporation never killed off VM. In spite of various attempts by various parts of the company to do so, the people who ultimately make those decisions said (quoting Julia Roberts) Tempting, but no. Yes, we moved many of our most treasured apps off of CMS, but I firmly believe those were sound business decisions. Annoying as all get out [oops..midwestern slang..sorry], sure, but the right thing to do. As far as OV was concerned, it was a casualty of the larger Office Wars that include e-mail, calendaring, collaboration, business process integration, business intelligence, and data warehousing. I do miss its simplicityI don't miss the lack of a clustering HA solution or the inability to manage my calendar when not connected to the network. (sigh) Credit where credit is due: IBM's lack of understanding [unwillingness to listen?] about how personal computing would imact departmental computing that would ultimately affect enterprise computing was the oxygen supply the fire needed, and so we found ourselves hoist on our own petard. Your post gives the impression that we have a new PL/I compiler sitting here on CMS that we don't want to ship. If such a thing exists, I've never seen it or heard of it. Not so much a case of IBM having a new version of PL/I for CMS just sitting on a shelf somewhere and not being shipped as a case that the PL/I compiler team uses CMS in it's development and a version for that environment could be made available with very little additional effort. I've poked at statements like this in the past. Effort by how many people? You know as well as anyone that developing a product is just one of the steps in bringing a product to market. You have to validate it, package it, market it, service it, and, in general, manage it. That ain't cheap. I notice that not all Linux software is available on all platforms, either. Why? Because just cross-compiling isn't sufficient. Having such an updated PL/I compiler, with the many new features and functions that have been introduced since the current compiler for VM (PL/I for MVS and VM, 5688-235) was made available, would be a real boon to the ISVs who use PL/I. I hope that all the z/VM ISVs who are using PL/I are pounding on their PWD contacts to express their concerns. You're correct as far as you go with that statement, AlanCMS is a great scripting tool environment, which also makes it a great place do to real application development and deployment as well. I'm not sure I see the relationship, Dave. Why does a good scripting environment imply a good AD environment? (2 pages, 1/2 margins, pica, double spaced, due Monday, you have a good w/e too!). TGIF. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott
Re: z/VM usability
-Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcy Cortes Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 7:23 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: z/VM usability CMS for applications is pretty clearly a dead end, although I don't think anyone wants to admit that at IBM. Even our other vendors don't seem to be wanting to do new things for CMS (-- the biggie right here now that has our CMS apps people rethinking their platform yet again is Connect:Direct (aka NDM) and it's lack of anything new esp the Secure+ feature). Marcy Still, if you add up all the CMS users world-wide they will number into the tens or hundreds of thousands. We account for over 3,000 ourselves. At what point does it's viability go away? Should IBM bring out a stabilized VM Classic to keep the old diehards happy, while regular VM continues on it's open systems march? Our organization has plans to eventually migrate from it's CMS applications. However in the meantime we are bringing in new CMS users from other less secure or unmaintainable systems. Everyone agrees that in the long term CMS plays a shrinking role. However, it will be important for IBM to provide support for the large and medium-scale CMS shops that continue to be in operation. How will IBM even know they still exist? Ray Mrohs U.S. Department of Justice 202-307-6896
Re: z/VM usability
All those CMS based applications are here at the State of New Jersey. We spent a year removing calls to 'PROFS' from CMS users exec's and profile's. This was from June 2005 to June 2006. Part of this was a nightly process to update the System Names file. And now we are working on the nightly process to create ACF2 reports from VM and MVS and update thousands of CMS files with DATA available to ISR's using an inhouse panel system based on PSS and INFOLIST. AND everyone's Profile exec brings up an 'INFOMENU' panel with hundreds of choices of applications and exec's and data panels. A lot's and lot's of CMS (REXX) applications running here. It will keep me busy till my (second) retirement in 2010. (first was 2004) Viva VM Bill Munson IT Specialist Office of Information Technology State of New Jersey (609) 984-4065 President MVMUA http://www.marist.edu/~mvmua David Boyes wrote: Ultimately, I'm trying to answer the question: if you have CMS-oriented users today, where are they going to go? I think that's an old question these days. Around here, it's pretty hard to find a CMS-only oriented person. Probably badly phrased on my part: CMS-oriented applications is probably a better description. The stuff works, it's tested, and rewriting it probably isn't cost-effective. Where do those applications go? And how?
Re: z/VM usability
not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of Hewitt Associates. *Craig Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED]* Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU 05/03/2007 01:26 PM Please respond to The IBM z/VM Operating System IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU To IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU cc Subject Re: z/VM usability Alan, How about comments on one of the basic premise of this thread - CMS is functionally stabilized? From an external POV, it does appear that CMS (and adjunct components like SFS) isn't (aren't) being enhanced for the continuing support role it has in maintaining a z/VM CP environment. -- Craig Dudley Manager, Mainframe Technical Support Group Office of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1506Fax 603-271-1516 On Thursday, 05/03/2007 at 11:35 AST, Edward M. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the If it ain't broke, don't fix it. was caused by IBM not supporting a product that is supported by the other IBM Operating systems. IBM is basically breaking a working system. (IMHO) And I am working on away to get off the VM/VSAM part, and it looks like it will be a NON-IBM solution. But I am still looking. By business as usual, I mean that IBM continually withdraws products from the marketplace, even some that people are using. There are still people using VM/ESA V2. It was nearly two years ago (June 2005) that we announced that you would no longer be able to order VM/VSAM effective September 30, 2005. In August of the same year we announced that VM/VSAM would end service February 28, 2007. Standard meaning: Don't deploy new applications that depend on VM/VSAM and begin working on a migration or risk mitigation plan for applications you already have. It's true that if there is no replacement product from IBM, and no 3rd-party substitute, then, yes, the application is eventually re-hosted or discontinued completely. And sometimes on a non-IBM, non-Linux platform. IBM makes the decisions it makes and has to live with the consequences. I'm also sensitive to the fact that those decisions can also affect someone's livlihood (inside IBM and out). I don't blame anyone for being upset, if that's the case. Don't get me wrong, I wish VM/VSAM was still around, but it isn't, so you're doing the right thing, triggering an application review. If you choose that the risk of being unsupported is greater than the benefit your company derives from the application, then it is time for a change. Finally, to the best of my knowledge, we have done nothing to break a working system. If you find a defect in CMS that causes VSAM to break, and you have a VM support contract, we will fix it. If you find a defect in VSAM itself, no such luck unless you have an extended VSAM support contract. Alan Altmark z/VM Development IBM Endicott - End Forwarded Message - -- Craig Dudley Manager, Mainframe Technical Support Group Office of Information Technology State of New Hampshire 27 Hazen Drive Concord, NH 03301 603-271-1506Fax 603-271-1516 The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.
Re: z/VM usability
I think that you are talking about something that is either going to hit us real hard or IBM is going to come out with something that will eliminate the need to the CMS based tools old folks such as me and, having met a lot of you at SHARE conferences, most of the rest of you. You look around at SHARE and you almost never see someone who is closer to college age than retirement age. Those rare ones are not sitting in on the kind of VM sessions most of us do. There is, for all practical purposes, no IBM education that would take a new, inexperienced person from an Intro to VM course level to an advanced level. Maybe this means that IBM is going to eliminate the need for us CP/CMS knowledgeable sysprogs. Notice the greatly expanded number of lpars that are permitted on the newer processors. An lpar is really a virtual machine running under a CP based hypervisor. How much CP/CMS is needed to carve out an lpar? Something like that may be where we are going--or at least the rest of you. I'll be at full SS retirement age in a year and a half. Jim David Boyes wrote: All true at a high level. But, I think we're going to have to struggle very soon with a number of these usability issues. Note that in recent IBM presentations on VM futures, CMS investment seldom or never appears. Many of these functions (SFS, directory management, backup, etc) depend on knowledge of CMS -- most of us on this mailing list survived the situations that lead up to the development of these various Good Things, so we have the context and the skill set to support them. We're entering a time when that context is missing in the next generation of system administrators, and we no longer have CMS users as the primary focus of VM.=20 I believe we need to ask the question of usability improvement for these functions. The skills are no longer there, and we are focusing VM on serving a community that wants to develop them about as much as they want to learn JCL. Telling someone to RTFM -- well, they'd have to find the right FM first.=20 Perhaps I'm worrying about the system after next again. I think it's a question that we need to start to think about, though.=20 -- Jim Bohnsack Cornell University (607) 255-1760 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: z/VM usability
VIrtualization is (finally) a hot topic among the young 'uns in the industry. Unfortunately, most have never heard of the IBM's VM. I have run into a few younger (30-something) folks who have discovered the roots of virtualization and have tried to play around with it with Hercules. Unfortunately they are limited to primitive versions of VM/370. I don't think they are even allowed to run SEPP or BSEP, so editing is in line-mode only. These folks likely will never attend SHARE since they are doing this for fun, and not for any traditional organization. If there were someway they could license a more recent VM for a non-production test/development Hercules environment, they MIGHT discover the joys of CMS as we know it. Ultimately they COULD grow up thinking that todays' 30-40-something IBM-hating mgt-types are WRONG. Might even lead to addtl Z-processor sales down the road. But I don't want to open THAT can-of-worms in this discussion! Jim Bohnsack wrote: I think that you are talking about something that is either going to hit us real hard or IBM is going to come out with something that will eliminate the need to the CMS based tools old folks such as me and, having met a lot of you at SHARE conferences, most of the rest of you. You look around at SHARE and you almost never see someone who is closer to college age than retirement age. Those rare ones are not sitting in on the kind of VM sessions most of us do. There is, for all practical purposes, no IBM education that would take a new, inexperienced person from an Intro to VM course level to an advanced level. Maybe this means that IBM is going to eliminate the need for us CP/CMS knowledgeable sysprogs. Notice the greatly expanded number of lpars that are permitted on the newer processors. An lpar is really a virtual machine running under a CP based hypervisor. How much CP/CMS is needed to carve out an lpar? Something like that may be where we are going--or at least the rest of you. I'll be at full SS retirement age in a year and a half. Jim
Re: z/VM usability
I think that you are talking about something that is either going to hit us real hard or IBM is going to come out with something that will eliminate the need to the CMS based tools old folks such as me and, having met a lot of you at SHARE conferences, most of the rest of you. One of the questions I asked George Madl in his VM Directions session at zExpo in Munich was that given that there seems to be no further roadmap for additional CMS investment, what the migration plan might look like for CMS users to (probably) a Linux environment as the personal operating system for interactive users. He didn't have an answer, but asked me to assemble a list of things we think we might need. I think it's pretty clear that we will need ways to build and maintain CP from Linux (the TPF guys have a pretty good head start on this one), and we'll need some REXX and CMS command utility emulation to provide a moderately smooth migration for our execs. We'll need a formalization of Linux access to CP services and capabilities, either by a common API or by REXX and Perl function packages. We'll need at least emulation of the linemode capabilities of XEDIT (a full-screen emulation that is termcap-aware would be awesome, but a lot harder), and some kind of emulation for CMS Pipelines. I think we'll also need tools to migrate compiled modules -- sort of a Cygwin for CMS applications; intercept the CMS APIs and emulate them. Other ideas? I'd be very interested to know what others think about this. Maybe this means that IBM is going to eliminate the need for us CP/CMS knowledgeable sysprogs. One of the basic value points of the combination of LPAR and VM is the ability to virtualize resources at both a macro (LPAR) and micro (virtual machine) level, which is much finer control than is present in any other virtualization solution. I'd expect more a plan to finally make VM a ubiquitous feature of the hardware -- at the current price points, and given the withdrawal of VSAM pretty much kills CMS as an application support and testing platform, layering the cost of VM development into the price of hardware doesn't seem to hurt much and it's a huge PR win vs VMWare or Xen. Heady stuff. -- db
Re: z/VM usability
Finally, a topic where I fell I may have something to add vs learn! I am 'new' to z/VM, other than IBM education classes I logged on to 'our' first VM system May 2005. I've spent the previous 25 years in COBOL, CICS, z/OS. We ventured into the z/VM to support linux to support WebSphere. Its worked 'great' for us. I've learned a lot of linux, I can do that at home. I've had the opportunity to attend z/VM sessions at z/Series Expo and the Installation for linux guest class. To date I'm able to limp my way around CMS to keep things working, but the vast majority of what you all discuss here is way beyond my ability to grasp. I'd draw the correlation of a Senior Biology major listening to a discussion between tenured Biology professors. I understand the words, but the picture that is being painted is incomprehensible. Having said that, to date I've found little reason to delve into these topics. I'm not sure 'why' I need to learn more CMS. I know this is likely the ignorance of inexperience, but, how can you 'miss' what you dont know? Our environment is working great supporting linux guests. In essence, z/VM is doing what we want. We are able to get by with a minimum of experience, I see that as a 'positive' for z/VM rather than the loss of CMS expertise being a harbinger of its demise. Steve Mitchell Sr Systems Software Specialist Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas (785) 291-8885 'There are no degrees of Honesty-you're either Honest or you're not!
Re: z/VM usability
Surely you jest!!! Well, no, actually. Using Linux to build a TPF system was something IBM 'forced' onto the TPF users despite their kicking and screaming to the contrary. Just ask anyone of the TPF users how much they like using Linux to build their TPF systems. Curious. The TPF people I come into contact with on a semi-regular basis seem to like it a lot. May be industry specific; dunno. Why expend all the energy, money and manpower to build all of the emulation requirements you mention in another platform when you already have the real thing now - and they work! To be blunt: because IBM is not-so-gradually killing CMS's ability to host application workload by means of starvation. No VSAM, no updated compilers other than C, no tooling that is not absolutely necessary to maintain CP equals no capability to continue to host commercial applications. The writing is on the wall. Ultimately, I'm trying to answer the question: if you have CMS-oriented users today, where are they going to go? How are you going to get them there? We've got plenty of evidence that TSO certainly isn't it. What are your choices, and how do you salvage as much of the existing already-built-and-paid-for business logic as you can? I'd rather start working on answers to these questions *before* I have to do it in an emergency fire-drill mode. I think it's fair to ask IBM to help us find those answers if they're going to break our toys, so I'd like to tell them what we need so they can work with us to find an answer.
Re: z/VM usability
Just kind of wonder Is IBM making TPF users depend on a non-IBM product (zLinux), to maintain TPF? About 3 or 4 years ago, we had a rather lengthy topic on using a canned Linux/390, similar to GCS or even CMS in order to host Linux type servers. Mostly small stuff (as common at that time), like firewalls, routers, even the IP stack. Something that your only controls were: . How much disk space for that image . How much virtual memory . The machine's priority. The results were, since it is not IBM's code, they can't control it. They can't package it. And by picking a Linux flavor, it may look like they are throwing their weight behind that flavor. So, forward space 3-4 years Did they do it for TPF? Which flavor of zLinux? Is it a canned, drop down, keep you hands off, or a regular install? Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting (just wondering) David Boyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/2/2007 4:35 PM Surely you jest!!! Well, no, actually. Using Linux to build a TPF system was something IBM 'forced' onto the TPF answer.
Re: z/VM usability
Probably badly phrased on my part: CMS-oriented applications is probably a better description. The stuff works, it's tested, and rewriting it probably isn't cost-effective. Where do those applications go? And how? Some that work stay just chugging along. Those that need rewrites or big changes to keep up with the changing business climate (mergers, acquisitions, more online stuff, new finanical products, security, SOX) usually get tossed in favor of whatever they are putting the new apps on at the moment. Now, I should say that most of the things we have on CMS are not the core business stuff (the linux happily is though :) - mostly back office reporting, analysis, etc. z/OS, where the core business stuff does run, seems to just get flanked with stuff interfacing with it (preferably in an SOA kind of way) although I think they've seen their share of stuff leave too, but the flanking it stuff drives way more tranactions than a little old human teller ever could so it continues to grow crazily as well. I say give us stuff to cluster our VM systems to make managing multiples of them easier and Linux that can move from one to another. Also, improve the ability to use the heavy stuff like making disaster recover easier (GDPS/XRC?/global mirroring?), whatever the next big thing is. And keep up with whatever cool things VMWARE and those other virtualization things are doing. CMS for applications is pretty clearly a dead end, although I don't think anyone wants to admit that at IBM. Even our other vendors don't seem to be wanting to do new things for CMS (-- the biggie right here now that has our CMS apps people rethinking their platform yet again is Connect:Direct (aka NDM) and it's lack of anything new esp the Secure+ feature). Marcy This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
Re: z/VM usability
On May 2, 2007, at 9:51 PM, David Kreuter wrote: yet another urban legend, you know, like the mole people that live seven levels below Grand Central station. Dude. You have *no* idea. C.H.U.D.? *Not* science fiction. Not even fiction. Adam
Re: z/VM usability
I don't doubt that there were/are people living under Grand Central. Seen the dearth of homeless in Manhattan lately? They've gone somewhere. It's the seven levels below that I think is legend. The book The Mole People is a great read. But I digress. -Original Message- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Adam Thornton Sent: Wed 5/2/2007 10:59 PM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: [IBMVM] z/VM usability On May 2, 2007, at 9:51 PM, David Kreuter wrote: yet another urban legend, you know, like the mole people that live seven levels below Grand Central station. Dude. You have *no* idea. C.H.U.D.? *Not* science fiction. Not even fiction. Adam
