LINUX-390@www2.marist.edu post from mikemac@us.ibm.com :

Importance: Normal
Sensitivity:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Approved-By:  Michael MacIsaac <mikemac@US.IBM.COM>
Message-ID:  <OF62028CDC.1EF5EB36-ON85256B9D.0041DB4A@pok.ibm.com>
Date:         Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:23:53 -0400
Reply-To:     Linux on 390 Port <LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU>
Sender:       Linux on 390 Port <LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU>
From:         Michael MacIsaac <mikemac@us.ibm.com>
Subject:      Re: OK who messed with the redbook?

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@us.ibm.com   (845) 433-7061

Index
Previous Lines:  49 From:dawald@empagio.com Subject:Re: SLES7 for S/390 and Tomcat 4.03 Automating Startup Problem
Next Lines:  58 From:vic.cross@veejoe.com.au Subject:Re: Linux under VM + Toolsets.



Next by Thread Lines:  46 From:Linux@isham-research.com Subject:Re: OK who messed with the redbook?
Previous by Thread Lines: 120 From:cvernon@au1.ibm.com Subject:Re: OK who messed with the redbook?
Next by Author Lines:  45 From:mikemac@us.ibm.com Subject:Re: OK who messed with the redbook?
Previous by Author Lines:  38 From:mikemac@us.ibm.com Subject:Imprints - worth the effort?

End of page