WebSphere Support

swarajpal

Jan 16, 2003

Hello All Herculean

I am a brand new member in this group. So greet me.

Now my question is, does it support websphere 3.5, 4. or 5.0

Swaraj

7:14 am


Re: WebSphere Support

Adam Thornton

Jan 16, 2003

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 03:14:56PM +0000, swarajpal <swaraj@...>
wrote:
> I am a brand new member in this group. So greet me.

Greetings.

> Now my question is, does it support websphere 3.5, 4. or 5.0

Well, presumably, if you're running an operating system on it for which
WebSphere exists, it should run.

I'm guessing that if you installed SuSE Linux on Hercules, then you
should be able to install WebSphere on top of that. Performance is
going to be painful, though. I've never tried it.

Adam
--
adam@...
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits

7:39 am


Re: WebSphere Support

calphool2

Jan 21, 2003

Hello,

I can confirm that indeed, running Linux/390, SUSE, or Redhat 7.2,
you can run WebSphere 4.0 and 5.0. You have to get used to the
command line, because X is just too slow to use (I have a 1 ghz
notebook with 512meg of ram and I'm seeing an average of 10MIPS).
Although I don't know if the X performance is related to my as yet
unexplained poor network card performance.

Be aware however that it is unreasonable to expect normal (WAS on W2k
or Linux/x86) performance from this configuration. It takes just
under half an hour for Websphere to come on line on my notebook--the
same thing takes about 2 minutes on Linux/x86 on my notebook.
However if you're like me, you just needed it to prove to your
SysProgs that indeed Linux and Websphere will run on mainframe iron,
and it's more compatible with W2k and Linux/x86 WAS than the OS/390
(or zOS I guess) version. The zOS version is a flaky beast at best,
and it always lags behind the Linux distribution in feature set (If I
hear another IBM sales rep tell me that they're going to bring the
two WAS platforms closer together, I think I'll pull my hair out...
they've been promising that for three years!!)

<rant>
I wish IBM would just abandon the zOS version of Websphere and start
promoting Linux/390 on zVM as the way to do Websphere development on
the mainframe. It would make my life much easier. Let's face it,
zOS/MVS is pretty long in the tooth, and many (most?) of the MVS
sysprogs out there are reaching retirement age. The priesthood is
getting thin IBM... time to switch gears.... IBM obviously has no
interest in promoting zOS as a future forward OS, because if they
did, they'd make it easier for developers to get their hands on it.
(Can you imagine how impotent Microsoft would be today if they had
made acquiring MSDOS as difficult as it is to acquire zOS for
development purposes? I mean, you gotta shell out a minimum of
$13,000 to get one of those Thinkpads running Flex, and hope like
hell that you get approved for the ADCD through PartnerWorld.
Uhhh... no, I don't think so... I'll just stick with Linux/390 on
Hercules... I've got mySQL, Java, and Websphere... I don't need DB2,
COBOL, and CICS...) Anyway, I really don't want to spend the next 30
years fighting with a character based OS that was designed to be
backward compatible with software written in the early 1960s and is
so record based that chunks of the operating system still think
they're reading punch cards. (When was the last time you even SAW a
punch card? 1975?)

Do we really need this level of backward compatibility? For crying
out loud, if you haven't rewritten a piece of code once in 50 years,
you either have the worlds' laziest programmers, or the worlds most
forgiving end users.

I suspect I've probably offended all the nostalgia folks who are
messing with Herc to bring up MVS3.8J circa 1979... sorry guys...
hope no one takes this too seriously. Honestly I think Herc is
amazing. I've brought up MVS3.8J and TSO... I was truly surprised...
it reminded me of booting our mainframe at school in the late 1980s.
I just hope IBM comes to their senses at some point and makes an ADCD
license for developers available at some point. If they don't, then
I think Linux will eventually eat into their big iron revenue stream.
</rant>

Have a nice day!!

jr

---------------------------------------------------

--- In hercules-390@yahoogroups.com, Adam Thornton <adam@p...> wrote:

<SNIP>

> > Now my question is, does it support websphere 3.5, 4. or 5.0
>

<SNIP>

12:10 am


Re: WebSphere Support

Peter D. Ward

Jan 21, 2003

Let's see if I can reflect back your statements correctly:

Can't use X cuz its just too slow (don't know why) ....
Take half hour for Websphere to come on line ...
I don't need DB2, COBOL, and CICS...
I really don't want to spend the next 30 years fighting with a character
based OS
I'll just stick with Linux/390 on Hercules... I've got mySQL, Java, and
Websphere.

BUT ......

I just hope IBM comes to their senses at some point and makes an ADCD
license for developers available at some point

=========================
I wouldn't call that a rant, I'd call it delusional.....

I don't know what your time is worth to your company, but if you are a
developer of commercial mainframe software then perhaps your company ought to
consider the investment in a low-end PWD system. Even if you work only with
Linux/390, the access to z/VM is valuable.

PDW






"calphool2 " wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I can confirm that indeed, running Linux/390, SUSE, or Redhat 7.2,
> you can run WebSphere 4.0 and 5.0. You have to get used to the
> command line, because X is just too slow to use (I have a 1 ghz
> notebook with 512meg of ram and I'm seeing an average of 10MIPS).
> Although I don't know if the X performance is related to my as yet
> unexplained poor network card performance.
>
> Be aware however that it is unreasonable to expect normal (WAS on W2k
> or Linux/x86) performance from this configuration. It takes just
> under half an hour for Websphere to come on line on my notebook--the
> same thing takes about 2 minutes on Linux/x86 on my notebook.
> However if you're like me, you just needed it to prove to your
> SysProgs that indeed Linux and Websphere will run on mainframe iron,
> and it's more compatible with W2k and Linux/x86 WAS than the OS/390
> (or zOS I guess) version. The zOS version is a flaky beast at best,
> and it always lags behind the Linux distribution in feature set (If I
> hear another IBM sales rep tell me that they're going to bring the
> two WAS platforms closer together, I think I'll pull my hair out...
> they've been promising that for three years!!)
>
> <rant>
> I wish IBM would just abandon the zOS version of Websphere and start
> promoting Linux/390 on zVM as the way to do Websphere development on
> the mainframe. It would make my life much easier. Let's face it,
> zOS/MVS is pretty long in the tooth, and many (most?) of the MVS
> sysprogs out there are reaching retirement age. The priesthood is
> getting thin IBM... time to switch gears.... IBM obviously has no
> interest in promoting zOS as a future forward OS, because if they
> did, they'd make it easier for developers to get their hands on it.
> (Can you imagine how impotent Microsoft would be today if they had
> made acquiring MSDOS as difficult as it is to acquire zOS for
> development purposes? I mean, you gotta shell out a minimum of
> $13,000 to get one of those Thinkpads running Flex, and hope like
> hell that you get approved for the ADCD through PartnerWorld.
> Uhhh... no, I don't think so... I'll just stick with Linux/390 on
> Hercules... I've got mySQL, Java, and Websphere... I don't need DB2,
> COBOL, and CICS...) Anyway, I really don't want to spend the next 30
> years fighting with a character based OS that was designed to be
> backward compatible with software written in the early 1960s and is
> so record based that chunks of the operating system still think
> they're reading punch cards. (When was the last time you even SAW a
> punch card? 1975?)
>
> Do we really need this level of backward compatibility? For crying
> out loud, if you haven't rewritten a piece of code once in 50 years,
> you either have the worlds' laziest programmers, or the worlds most
> forgiving end users.
>
> I suspect I've probably offended all the nostalgia folks who are
> messing with Herc to bring up MVS3.8J circa 1979... sorry guys...
> hope no one takes this too seriously. Honestly I think Herc is
> amazing. I've brought up MVS3.8J and TSO... I was truly surprised...
> it reminded me of booting our mainframe at school in the late 1980s.
> I just hope IBM comes to their senses at some point and makes an ADCD
> license for developers available at some point. If they don't, then
> I think Linux will eventually eat into their big iron revenue stream.
> </rant>
>
> Have a nice day!!
>
> jr
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> --- In hercules-390@yahoogroups.com, Adam Thornton <adam@p...> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Now my question is, does it support websphere 3.5, 4. or 5.0
> >
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: hercules-390@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: hercules-390-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: hercules-390-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: hercules-390-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Files and archives at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hercules-390
>
> Get the latest version of Hercules from:
> http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

6:30 am


OT: Flamebait: RE Websphere

calphool2

Jan 21, 2003

Ahhhh.... I knew I'd offend someone...

Well, just to clear the air...

1) Regarding Linux/390, Hercules, CICS, DB2, mySQL, and me
being "delusional"...

My company doesn't use any of this stuff... I'm trying to get them to
use it because I don't care for MVS's IBM created priesthood--the
bulk of which are retiring at this point and could really care less
about my business users' demands for distributed web apps that are
gradually replacing these 30 year old CICS and COBOL apps. My
purpose for using Herc was to prove that it works--not to use it as a
production environment. I'd like to have the ADCD to be able to set
up a zOS + Linux/390 cooperative environment to replicate the
distributed big iron world more closely, so that I can do
new "transitional" development. Ultimately I believe that zOS will
go away and give way to Linux/390. In the mean time it would be nice
to be able to write "transitional" software that links the two
worlds. IBM is making that difficult by not licensing the ADCD for
that purpose unless you buy their Business Partner's overpriced
Hercules equivalent + an IBM Thinkpad.... so, as I said, I'll stay
with Herc for now and just keep widening the divide between Linux/390
and zOS--by default, not of my own choosing.

2) Regarding Linux and MVS's history...

While it's true that zOS and *nix have similar lineages with regard
to original release dates, their paths have been very different. zOS
is basically as proprietary as an operating system comes. For all
intents and purposes, its only mitigating influences have been those
customers with enough money to demand that IBM make changes, or those
customers who have less money banding together to complain. Linux
and the other *nix OSs have been modified and improved by thousands
of separate sources. Regardless of whether you believe in Open
Source or not, the end result of these two different paths is that
the *nix's are part and parcel of distributed computing. If you're
moving from Websphere in a fully distributed platform to Websphere on
big iron, the Linux/390 route is less traumatic. Despite what the
IBM sales force thinks, it will probably always be that way, since
Websphere on zOS is always trying to implement something that doesn't
exist on zOS but does exist in the *nix world.

3) Punch cards and 30 year old software...

Well... it's humorous that someone out there still has some punch
cards in their desk... what do you use them for, toilet paper? <j/k>
Regarding backward compatibility: hey, I'm a realist, I know that
it's not wise to rewrite stuff by development fad... I think my point
is still pretty strong though... 50 years of compatibility?! How do
you ever get rid of the hangers-on that are dragging the OS back?
Isn't it about time we have a nice clean user interface from IBM for
managing our zOS environment? ISPF just doesn't cut it anymore. The
funny thing is, I don't think the priesthood wants stuff like that.
It's fun to be the only guy in the whole shop who knows how to
____insert_your_favorite_OS_configuration_issue_____....

Anyway, now that you're all thoroughly angry with me, please take a
deep breath, consider the future of zOS, and if you have a different
opinion than mine, please educate me. I've only been doing this for
10 years, so I'm certainly no veteran, but I don't think I'm a newbie
either. I also think there are a lot of people who think the same
thing as me, so if we're dead wrong, let us know why you think so.

11:42 am


Re: OT: Flamebait: RE Websphere

Peter D. Ward

Jan 21, 2003

I presume you are making these moves on your company's behalf because by
moving down the path you advocate they will (ultimately) save or make more
money than they are currently saving or making. If they will save or make
more than 13K, then I see no secular reason why the investment in that
"overpriced Hercules equivalent + an IBM Thinkpad" wouldn't be made. What
is delusional is that despite your claim that this path is in the best
interests of your employer, you choose to implement instead a solution which
is by your own description incomplete so far as a "cooperative environment",
and in the process spending what is probably more than 13K's worth of salary
on time spent provisioning and booting-up which could have been avoided with
the other integrated solution.

PDW

"calphool2 " wrote:

> 1) Regarding Linux/390, Hercules, CICS, DB2, mySQL, and me
> being "delusional"...
>
> My company doesn't use any of this stuff... I'm trying to get them to
> use it because I don't care for MVS's IBM created priesthood--the
> bulk of which are retiring at this point and could really care less
> about my business users' demands for distributed web apps that are
> gradually replacing these 30 year old CICS and COBOL apps. My
> purpose for using Herc was to prove that it works--not to use it as a
> production environment. I'd like to have the ADCD to be able to set
> up a zOS + Linux/390 cooperative environment to replicate the
> distributed big iron world more closely, so that I can do
> new "transitional" development. Ultimately I believe that zOS will
> go away and give way to Linux/390. In the mean time it would be nice
> to be able to write "transitional" software that links the two
> worlds. IBM is making that difficult by not licensing the ADCD for
> that purpose unless you buy their Business Partner's overpriced
> Hercules equivalent + an IBM Thinkpad.... so, as I said, I'll stay
> with Herc for now and just keep widening the divide between Linux/390
> and zOS--by default, not of my own choosing.

12:24 pm


Re: OT: Flamebait: RE Websphere

Joe Zitzelberger

Jan 21, 2003

On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 02:42 PM, calphool2
<jrounceville@...> wrote:
> Ahhhh.... I knew I'd offend someone...
> <snip>

Well said.

IBM's (and its 'legacy' customers hell bent on compatibility) problem
seems to be this fixation on having someone actually pay in advance for
any development.

The forget the central rule of business -- it takes money to make
money. They never seem to be willing to do any incremental development
just to keep the platform current, that is why z/OS still looks like
something out of 1965 and is considered a dinosaur by the world at
large.

They will either 'get it' or go the way of OS/2...

psychedelic-harry@...

This tagline intentionally left blank.

4:17 pm


Re: OT: Flamebait: RE Websphere

Paul A. Scott

Jan 21, 2003

>> Ahhhh.... I knew I'd offend someone...
>> <snip>
> They will either 'get it' or go the way of OS/2...

What I think some of you are missing is that MVS (or OS/390 or zOS or
whatever you want to call it) is so heavily entrenched in the fortune 100's
and even fortune 500's that it isn't going away any time soon. I was
involved in many DOS/VSE to MVS conversions ten to fifteen years ago, and
those were relatively simple compared to what it would take to get off MVS
today. At least for the larger shops. Also, you're talking about not only a
technology change but a major shift in the business infrastructure.

Even fortune 100's that have adopted Windows and Unix are still depending on
Mainframes for their high-volume backoffice processing. Granted, they're
looking to save costs, but that's not always a simple proposition.

Someday MVS may go away entirely. But it won't happen in my lifetime.

The OS/2 (half an operating system?) battle was all uphill, competing
against a huge installation base of Windows and threatened by Unix. MVS is a
mainstay of corporate America that stands on its own. You can't compare the
two.

Actually, hercules may be the biggest detriment to zOS, because it
demonstrates the feasibility of running production jobs in an emulated
environment while you gradually port code to less expensive hardware and
software. The transition could be gradual. Although IBM may not lease zOS
for hercules today, they could easily be forced to do so if taken to court,
and possibly at a reduced lease rate based on their current pricing scheme.
Did you notice IBM took out the reference to hercules from their Red Book?
Any wonder why?

That's my dribble. I won't comment on this subject again.

--
Paul A. Scott
mailto:pscott@...
http://skycoast.us/pscott/

4:54 pm


Re: OT: Flamebait: RE Websphere

calphool2

Jan 21, 2003

Ugggh... I'm doing the Herc testing on my own time... it's not
costing my company anything... I am basically doing two things at
once... 1) Proving to my employer that Websphere runs on big iron
outside of MVS, and 2) learning to do s390 Linux development so that
I may sell mainframe products.


--- In hercules-390@yahoogroups.com, "Peter D. Ward" <pdw@m...> wrote:
> I presume you are making these moves on your company's behalf
because by
> moving down the path you advocate they will (ultimately) save or
make more
> money than they are currently saving or making. If they will save
or make
> more than 13K, then I see no secular reason why the investment in
that
> "overpriced Hercules equivalent + an IBM Thinkpad" wouldn't be
made. What
> is delusional is that despite your claim that this path is in the
best
> interests of your employer, you choose to implement instead a
solution which
> is by your own description incomplete so far as a "cooperative
environment",
> and in the process spending what is probably more than 13K's worth
of salary
> on time spent provisioning and booting-up which could have been
avoided with
> the other integrated solution.
>
> PDW
>
> "calphool2 " wrote:
>
> > 1) Regarding Linux/390, Hercules, CICS, DB2, mySQL, and me
> > being "delusional"...
> >
> > My company doesn't use any of this stuff... I'm trying to get
them to
> > use it because I don't care for MVS's IBM created priesthood--the
> > bulk of which are retiring at this point and could really care
less
> > about my business users' demands for distributed web apps that are
> > gradually replacing these 30 year old CICS and COBOL apps. My
> > purpose for using Herc was to prove that it works--not to use it
as a
> > production environment. I'd like to have the ADCD to be able to
set
> > up a zOS + Linux/390 cooperative environment to replicate the
> > distributed big iron world more closely, so that I can do
> > new "transitional" development. Ultimately I believe that zOS
will
> > go away and give way to Linux/390. In the mean time it would be
nice
> > to be able to write "transitional" software that links the two
> > worlds. IBM is making that difficult by not licensing the ADCD
for
> > that purpose unless you buy their Business Partner's overpriced
> > Hercules equivalent + an IBM Thinkpad.... so, as I said, I'll stay
> > with Herc for now and just keep widening the divide between
Linux/390
> > and zOS--by default, not of my own choosing.

10:07 pm


Re: OT: Flamebait: RE Websphere

calphool2

Jan 21, 2003

One point I forgot to mention is that I WORK for a fortune 100, and
it's not that entrenched any more guys... less and less so every
day. I've personally lead or been involved with the rewrites for
about 12 major major COBOL/CICS systems to web technologies in the
last 4 years. We're talking millions of lines of former COBOL code,
gone, kablooey--replaced by *nix and Windows apps. I work for an
insurance company too--not exactly a bastion of bleeding edge
thinking here.

My whole idea in stirring this nasty pot was to express what I think
is a common school of thought with 30-something aged developers and
system architects these days--that zOS is dying, that Linux/390 is
probably the ONLY way I'll consider using big iron, and GUESS WHAT
IBM, you don't have the strangle hold that you once had... we're
actually DOING IT--we're moving off of MVS.

jr


--- In hercules-390@yahoogroups.com, "Paul A. Scott" <pscott@s...>
wrote:
>
> >> Ahhhh.... I knew I'd offend someone...
> >> <snip>
> > They will either 'get it' or go the way of OS/2...
>
> What I think some of you are missing is that MVS (or OS/390 or zOS
or
> whatever you want to call it) is so heavily entrenched in the
fortune 100's
...........

10:20 pm


Copyright 2003