3 ms·
The second one immediately lowers the TCO for obvious licensing reasons How true is that though? They'd still have software licensing, they still need an OS to
by le-mark 7y ago
The second one immediately lowers the TCO for obvious licensing reasons
How true is that though? They'd still have software licensing, they still need an OS to run on Hercules after all.
- mperham 7y agoNo expensive IBM hardware support/services needed.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tyingq 7y agoIBM won't let you run OS/390, z/OS, etc, in Hercules for free. There's an ancient version of MVS you may be able to run with Hercules, but I'd expect a lawsuit anyway.
- karambahh 7y agoIt's been a long while.... At the time, RedHat was still "free". Linux sysadmins were cheaper than their mainframe colleagues. Hw was orders of magnitude cheaper. Floor occupancy was lower. We did not got as far as watts consumed per functional task performed but I doubt it would have tilted the balance?
- karambahh 7y agoSorry I misread your comment! You're obviously right for licensing inside the emulator! However, the costs are(were?) in hardware & floor occupancy (as in "decomission a whole room"-cheaper)
- fork1 7y agoNot just the OS, legacy applications tend to rely on DB2, CICS, IMS, and what not. All of those have expensive licenses and cannot readily run on emulation. Switching to Hercules does not solve the issue, unless your cobol apps are barebone batches.