So I date back to MFT and the honorable S360. However after attending the
demonstration for MSM my views are somewhat changed. Guess the old dog will
be learning some new tricks.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive acces
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:14:44 -0700, Ed Gould wrote:
>Well I was wrong *BUT* not totally. It seems as though that the glorious
folks at CA didn't want to really play the SMP/e rules.
>It came out after the following 5 (or so years) that indeed CA didn't want
to put in all the prereq on the SMP/e
--- On Mon, 6/21/10, Mark Yuhas wrote:
---SNIP--
Since CA is now going to distribute updates and releases via MSM, does
this mean that all of CA's products will follow the same methodology for
installation? For example, Telon would send out various release
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:51:11 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
>
>
>BTW, I just upgraded from R2 to R3 over the weekend mostly because I was
>interested in the deployment function (but there are some other nice features
>also). In trying to test a deployment, it looks like it will only work
>with "futur
lease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to!
-Original Message-
From: Mark Zelden [mailto:mzel...@flash.net]
Sent: 23 June 2010 17:18
Subject: MSM R3 Deploy (was Re: CA's MSM)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:51:11 -0500, Mark Zelden
wrote:
>
>BTW, I just u
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:00:44 -0700, Mark Yuhas wrote:
>Since CA is now going to distribute updates and releases via MSM, does
>this mean that all of CA's products will follow the same methodology for
>installation?
_All_ is a hard word. _Almost all_ is easier to defend (and achieve). We
keep
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:51:11 -0500, Mark Zelden wrote:
>
>BTW, I just upgraded from R2 to R3 over the weekend mostly because I was
>interested in the deployment function (but there are some other nice features
>also). In trying to test a deployment, it looks like it will only work
>with "futur
Since CA is now going to distribute updates and releases via MSM, does
this mean that all of CA's products will follow the same methodology for
installation? For example, Telon would send out various releases and
service packs. None cumulative. Upgrading required applying each
release and servic
Of course if Phil was still around, there'd be no need to add some " color from
the analyst community".
He provided that in spades.
Shane ...
On Sat, Jun 19th, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Scott Fagen wrote:
> To give at least some color from the analyst community about our
> efforts, ...
To give at least some color from the analyst community about our efforts,
here are two links to briefs by EMA and Gartner (mind any wraps).
EMA:
http://www.ca.com/files/IndustryAnalystReports/emaworldmainframe0510ib_239016.pdf
(We host the EMA brief because we paid them for the right, it is a
flat
Paul Gilmartin has characterized my mercifully infrequent contributions to this
forum and my only one to this thread as harangues.
One immediately accessible web definition of <> is:
An impassioned, disputatious public speech; A tirade or rant, whether spoken or
written; To give a forceful an
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:22:34 -0400, Brian France wrote:
>john gilmore wrote:
>> Brian Peterson wrote:
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that one of the most significant results of this common
>> installation tool initiative is actually not the tool itself. Rather, in my
>> opinion, it is the fact that al
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:05:23 +, john gilmore wrote:
>
>I should feel different about it if it were radically innovative; it is not.
>
"Radically innovative" is subjective. How many CA products do you need
to install and maintain across how many sysplexes and LPARs?
I do think it is innov
Like the comparison of having an MCSE do it. ZOS is not 'shield' installed
and we don't need GUI tools that badly. Allow the NKOTB to plug and play a
product? Is that a wise choice. Besides we all know the mainframe is going
away...
-
IMO, this is all about "how to allow an MSCE to install z/OS software".
Remember that people cost more than software. And software doesn't up and
resign or retire, taking their expertise with them. One day, I expect the HMC
to have the "install the latest z/OS" button. Management pushes it and "
I like MSM however, it does need some growth time.
My main issue is if you try to use MSM to install a product but that product is
not ready for MSM, there is NOTHING I could find that MSM would say "NOT MSM
Supported".
So I would spend days or hours trying to use MSM on something not ready for
john gilmore wrote:
Brian Peterson wrote:
It seems to me that one of the most significant results of this common installation tool
initiative is actually not the tool itself. Rather, in my opinion, it is the fact that
all of the "tribes" within the CA family now have ONE install methodol
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf
Of john gilmore
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 Thursday 10:05 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: CA's MSM
Brian Peterson wrote:
It seems to me that one of the most significant results of this common
install
ology Services
Washington State University
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On
> Behalf Of Brian Peterson
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:28 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
> Subject: Re: CA's MSM
>
> I&#x
Brian Peterson wrote:
It seems to me that one of the most significant results of this common
installation tool initiative is actually not the tool itself. Rather, in my
opinion, it is the fact that all of the "tribes" within the CA family now have
ONE install methodology - one that is comm
I've been working with CA MSM for a year or so - first the R2 release, then
the R3 release.
I really like this new tool. (I remember, and hated, aggrivator).
It seems to me that one of the most significant results of this common
installation tool initiative is actually not the tool itself. Rath
Overall. Usual litany...legacy system, nothing new coming on-line, etc.
RARELY look askance at USS stuff. No websphere, and so on. Java? My coffee
cup has java in it. And no, it's not an attitude about USS, we just don't
play there.
-
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:55:11 -0500, Daniel McLaughlin
wrote:
>Well, to each his own. We are not blessed with USS knowledge and the install
>instructions for the product assume that the reader is. I've read many of
>the posts but some of the vendor info is nebulous to say the least.
>Thank you for
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:55:11 -0500, Daniel McLaughlin wrote:
>Well, to each his own. We are not blessed with USS knowledge and the install
>instructions for the product assume that the reader is.
>
Is that CA-peculiar or IBM-general?
-- gil
---
Well, to each his own. We are not blessed with USS knowledge and the install
instructions for the product assume that the reader is. I've read many of
the posts but some of the vendor info is nebulous to say the least.
Thank you for your feedback.
--
Well this should generate some entertainment for when the soccer gets a bit
slow ...
CA have an appalling history with regard to product maintenance - Russells lot
have been the best
of a bad bunch, and have been generally pretty good.
Other than that, uniformly terrible.
Scott has promised to
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:59:00 -0500, Daniel McLaughlin
wrote:
>We've been invited to a D&P on this next week. After reviewing some of the
>demos and documentation I sure don't see how it makes life easier..comments
>from those who have trod that road?
Search the archives for past posts of mine.
We've been invited to a D&P on this next week. After reviewing some of the
demos and documentation I sure don't see how it makes life easier..comments
from those who have trod that road?
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archi
28 matches
Mail list logo
