Is there a Herc Linux 390 list?
Paul Raulerson
Apr 14, 2002
Bascially, I am trying to bring up a copy of SuSE under Hercules and
wondered if there was
any documentation and/or a list for people interested in that.
-Paul
3:02 pm
Re: Is there a Herc Linux 390 list?
Richard Higson
Apr 14, 2002
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 10:02:52AM -0500, Paul Raulerson wrote:
> To: <hercules-390@yahoogroups.com>
> From: "Paul Raulerson" <praulerson@...>
> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:02:52 -0500
> Subject: [hercules-390] Is there a Herc Linux 390 list?
>
> Bascially, I am trying to bring up a copy of SuSE under Hercules and
> wondered if there was
> any documentation and/or a list for people interested in that.
>
> -Paul
No, just do it, it works.
Follow whatever documentation you have from
{SuSE, RedHat, Debian, ThinkBlue, ThinkBlue/64, Caiman, Turbo}
They all work.
Richard
--
I stand corrected: M$-Exchange *IS* RFC-Compliant.
RFC1925 Para 2 Section (3)
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1925.html
Have a nice day ;-) Richard Higson mailto:richard.higson@...
8:02 pm
Re: Is there a Herc Linux 390 list?
Paul Raulerson
Apr 14, 2002
Well, perhaps I am just blind or something, but most of the documentation
that
used to be out there on
net about LInux/390 and Hercules seems to have vanished. Redhat's website simply
says to purchase the
boxed set; Suse seems to be years out of date, the redbook that is supposed to
have a whole chapter
on Hercules does not even have the word Hercules in it any longer...
Yeesh...
-Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Higson" <richard.higson@...>
To: <hercules-390@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [hercules-390] Is there a Herc Linux 390 list?
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 10:02:52AM -0500, Paul Raulerson wrote:
> > To: <hercules-390@yahoogroups.com>
> > From: "Paul Raulerson" <praulerson@...>
> > Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:02:52 -0500
> > Subject: [hercules-390] Is there a Herc Linux 390 list?
> >
> > Bascially, I am trying to bring up a copy of SuSE under Hercules and
> > wondered if there was
> > any documentation and/or a list for people interested in that.
> >
> > -Paul
> No, just do it, it works.
> Follow whatever documentation you have from
> {SuSE, RedHat, Debian, ThinkBlue, ThinkBlue/64, Caiman, Turbo}
> They all work.
>
> Richard
> --
> I stand corrected: M$-Exchange *IS* RFC-Compliant.
> RFC1925 Para 2 Section (3)
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1925.html
> Have a nice day ;-) Richard Higson mailto:richard.higson@...
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11:23 pm
Disappearing redbook chapter
rogerbowler
Apr 15, 2002
--- In hercules-390 Paul Raulerson wrote:
> the redbook that is supposed to have a whole chapter
> on Hercules does not even have the word Hercules in
> it any longer...
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg244987.html
Amazing but true! All references to Hercules have been carefully
expunged! I smell skulduggery here. Normal IBM procedure is to
increment the version suffix when a book is updated. But in this
case the suffix remains at -00 (first edition, sept.2000). Unless
the IBM redbook site has been hacked (surely not likely), it gives
out the impression that someone was persuaded to bypass normal
procedures to make this change. I'll bet that whoever is behind it
will end up with egg on their faces. Highly amusing!
RB.
11:53 am
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter
edamjr
Apr 15, 2002
snip...
From the Linux-390 list, Phil Payne responding to my post:
> As of (apparently) March 21st, the Redbook has been revised (without
> incrementing the version number, contrary to normal IBM practice),
and *all*
> references to Hercules have been carefully expunged!
Roger Bowler's name has also been removed from the list of
contributors. It
would be stranger
yet for that to happen without him being informed in advance. Did
they do that,
and did they
give a reason?
Hate to have to agree with Phil twice in one day, but it's a bloody
good question. If I were RB, I'd be considerably annoyed.
Mike
7:18 pm
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter
Apr 15, 2002
rogerbowler
--- In hercules-390, Mike Ross wrote:
> From the Linux-390 list, Phil Payne responding to my post:
>> Roger Bowler's name has also been removed from the list of
>> contributors. It would be stranger yet for that to happen
>> without him being informed in advance. Did they do that,
>> and did they give a reason?
>
> Hate to have to agree with Phil twice in one day, but it's
> a bloody good question. If I were RB, I'd be considerably
> annoyed.
Mike, I am afraid this just goes to show (as if any further evidence
were needed) that uncle Payne shoots his mouth off without knowing
what he's talking about. He clearly hasn't taken any more than a
cursory glance at the book, otherwise he would have noticed that I
was *not* one of the contributors.
In any case, I do not propose to answer his questions because:
(a) he is a windbag
(b) it is none of his business
(c) this is not a genuine enquiry, but another "Phil Payne special"
designed to provoke an argument. Look how he has already diverted
your linux-390 redbook thread for the purposes of his own
self-aggrandizement, hauling out the tired old "fishy flame" topic
yet again. The more he complains about that flame not being
censored off the list, the more adamant I shall be that it should
remain here!!
Agreeing with Phil Payne twice in one day? Mike, you must get
yourself out of these bad habits! :-)
RB.
8:53 pm
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter
Greg Smith
Apr 15, 2002
Alan Cox's take is interesting:
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvtype?LINUX-VM.25636
"Well if IBM wants to discredit itself completely in the eyes of their
customers and the community I can't think of many more effective ways."
Greg
11:03 pm
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter
Jay Maynard
Apr 16, 2002
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:03:48PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> "Well if IBM wants to discredit itself completely in the eyes of their
> customers and the community I can't think of many more effective ways."
This was, more or less, Eric Raymond's reply when I mentioned the
possibility to him a while back.
12:31 am
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter AND Feel the heat
Hall, Ken (ECSS)
Apr 16, 2002
I don't recall whether or not this has been mentioned, but I think it could be
likely that IBM could be getting pressure from FSI.
Flex/ES IS the "officially sanctioned" emulator, supposedly developed with the
support and cooperation of IBM, under the "partnership" program.
If you were in their shoes, how would YOU feel if an IBM document included a
tacit endorsement of a freely-available "competitor"? Especially one that seems
to be slightly more advanced technically.
2:36 pm
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter AND Feel the heat
edamjr
Apr 16, 2002
--- In hercules-390@y..., "Hall, Ken (ECSS)" <kehall@e...> wrote:
> I don't recall whether or not this has been mentioned, but I think
it could be likely that IBM could be getting pressure from FSI.
I wondered that as well... but I was wrong: this is the latest
contribution on LINUX-390, from an IBM guy who was involved in the
decision:
Hi list,
I speak for myself and not for IBM.
On this subject, Neale Ferguson's quote comes to mind which
goes something like this:
"Any sufficiently large organization is a microcosm of society."
The chapter was not accidentally left out. It is rare for a redbook
to change this way. The powers that be whom effected this change
come from a different part of IBM society. They have a different
viewpoint. They perhaps don't understand the significance of
the open source revolution. I'm sure they might comment "perhaps
you don't understand the value of IBM intellectual property". On the
topic of the significance of open source, I am often amazed at how
far and how fast IBM has come. I attribute a lot of the change to
Dr. Irving Wladowsky-Berger's vision and position (but I digress).
A couple of points from this discussion, at opposite ends of the
spectrum, are poignant:
> As of (apparently) March 21st, the Redbook has been revised (without
> incrementing the version number, contrary to normal IBM practice)
Point taken, clearly. There should not be two different books with
the same order number. I have suggested that we admit the change
(though I shouldn't say "we" as I no longer work for the ITSO). The
updated redbook should have a new order number SG24-4987-01.
It should have a "Summary of changes" section. What should be the
wording for the summary of changes? The template goes like this:
"This revision reflects the addition, deletion, or modification
of new and changed information described below.
New information
-) None
Changed information
-) ???
This bullet will be difficult to word, but it should be worded.
How about a bullet such as "A topic was removed because IBM paid
for this book to be written and is our prerogative to do so".
(I have not studied the new GNU documentation license, but it
would be interesting to see if this situation is addressed.)
Remember, redbooks are a great source of free information and
a lot of hard work goes into them.
But should it have been removed? I was asked my opinion of whether
the topic should be removed from the redbook and was clearly against
it for many of the reasons cited in this discussion. But this point
nails
it
on the head:
> When the rest of us end up dropping S/390 patches and not
> testing compilation of S/390 stuff because of lack of ability
> to test only they and their customer base lose.
This needs to be understood by the IBMers who effected the change.
Many of us within IBM are spoiled by being awash in MIPS. The value
of Linux on zSeries is the quality of the hardware, the firmware,
z/VM,
and the diligence of what "production" means. With Hercules running
on a PC, the quality of the hardware and firmware is replaced. As I
understand it, z/VM cannot be licensed to run on Hercules. Those
who understand the diligence of production services will probably not
be recommending Hercules.
So what is left? An apparently excellent emulator that allows those
open source developers with an "itch to scratch", to come to the S/390
table and contribute. This is the value of Hercules *as I see it*,
but
again, I come from the open source neighborhood of the IBM society.
-Mike MacIsaac, IBM mikemac@... (845) 433-7061
4:31 pm
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter AND Feel the heat
rogerbowler
Apr 17, 2002
--- In hercules-390, Ken Hall wrote:
> I don't recall whether or not this has been mentioned, but
> I think it could be likely that IBM could be getting pressure
> from FSI.
--- In hercules-390, Mike Ross wrote:
> I wondered that as well... but I was wrong: this is the latest
> contribution on LINUX-390, from an IBM guy who was involved in the
> decision:
(snip)
Why do you think you were wrong? Nowhere in that piece does it say
*who* put the pressure on to have the book surrepticiously altered.
If you look at who has been making sustained efforts over the past
two years to have Hercules killed off, well let's just say, it isn't
IBM.
RB.
2:39 am
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter AND Feel the heat
Peter D. Ward
Apr 17, 2002
Roger,
Sorry, Roger, you'll have to look for your ghosts elsewhere --- nothing
in FSI's dealings with IBM would afford the kind of influence you claim,
and I doubt anyone else outside of IBM has it either. My guess is that
there probably is an explanation available for the asking ....
PDW
rogerbowler wrote:
> --- In hercules-390, Ken Hall wrote:
> > I don't recall whether or not this has been mentioned, but
> > I think it could be likely that IBM could be getting pressure
> > from FSI.
>
> Why do you think you were wrong? Nowhere in that piece does it say
> *who* put the pressure on to have the book surrepticiously altered.
>
> If you look at who has been making sustained efforts over the past
> two years to have Hercules killed off, well let's just say, it isn't
> IBM.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1:27 pm
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter AND Feel the heat
Hall, Ken (ECSS)
Apr 17, 2002
You don't think so?
Under the terms of the PID program, IBM promises to promote the products of
it's partners. They have no such agreement regarding Hercules, so how does it
look when Hercules gets a Redbook chapter,
and Flex doesn't? At LEAST it's embarassing, and at MOST, it's (possibly) a
violation of the PID agreement.
Further, IBM is depending on Flex to provide support for the "entry level"
customer, a market IBM has ignored for years, causing it to dry up to the point
that new mainframe installations in customers
not already "locked in" became exceedingly rare.
IBM NEEDS Flex for the entry-level and small developer community, since it
provides several features Hercules does not, and as a sanctioned commercial
product, can be supported by IBM at the same
level as the Multiprise and Z-series boxes. If FSI decides there's not enough
market for Flex to succeed, and can lay some of the blame on Hercules, they can
back out of the whole deal, leaving IBM
stuck for a low-end solution.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter D. Ward [mailto:pdw@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:27 AM
To: hercules-390@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hercules-390] Re: Disappearing redbook chapter AND Feel the heat
Roger,
Sorry, Roger, you'll have to look for your ghosts elsewhere --- nothing
in FSI's dealings with IBM would afford the kind of influence you claim,
and I doubt anyone else outside of IBM has it either. My guess is that
there probably is an explanation available for the asking ....
PDW
rogerbowler wrote:
> --- In hercules-390, Ken Hall wrote:
> > I don't recall whether or not this has been mentioned, but
> > I think it could be likely that IBM could be getting pressure
> > from FSI.
>
> Why do you think you were wrong? Nowhere in that piece does it say
> *who* put the pressure on to have the book surrepticiously altered.
>
> If you look at who has been making sustained efforts over the past
> two years to have Hercules killed off, well let's just say, it isn't
> IBM.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=225001.2005406.3486599.1269402/D=egroupweb/S=1707281942:H\
M/A=1044510/R=0/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/grp/300_g2_01/g22lp?Target=mm/g\
22lp.tmpl>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=225001.2005406.3486599.1269402/D=egroupmail/S=\
1707281942:HM/A=1044510/rand=479506465>
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
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hercules-390>
Get the latest version of Hercules from:
http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules <http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules>
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1:57 pm
Posting the redbook
Jay Maynard
Apr 17, 2002
Phil Payne pointed out to me in email that posting the original Linux on
S/390 Redbook, SG24-4987-00, would be a Bad Idea, since IBM holds copyright
on it. I'm forced to agree, after looking at the copy that's included with
Red Hat 7.2 (the unmodified one). The copyright statement does not say
anything about allowing redistribution.
In the normal case, IBM wouldn't care a great deal, since it's as much
advertising as it is documentation. In this case, though, we don't know if
the chapter was removed at the instigation of IBM's legal department; if it
was, giving them such a convenient stick to hit us over the head with would
be a Bad Idea.
Please don't.
12:54 pm
Re: Disappearing redbook chapter AND Feelthe heat
Apr 17, 2002
"Hall, Ken (ECSS)" wrote:
> Under the terms of the PID program, IBM promises to promote the
> products of it's partners. They have no such agreement regarding
> Hercules, so how does it look when Hercules gets a Redbook chapter,
> and Flex doesn't? At LEAST it's embarassing, and at MOST, it's
> (possibly) a violation of the PID agreement.
There is no PWD term that I know of which would obligate IBM to act in
the manner you suggest. If there were, I'd imagine EMC, CA, and the
like would have a field day.
PDW
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4:28 pm
Copyright 2002