Re: "Pretty" announcement for End Of Support for Power 9.

Dan,
I think what some of the others are trying to say is that ~ 4 levels of OS
simply isn't enough for one particular model to handle. For example, a
Power 9 supports 7.2-7.5. They think that there should be no technical
reason that rNext should not also be supported on P9 hardware.
I'm not saying that I agree with them. I'm not saying I'm not. I simply
do not have the knowledge of how much hardware testing IBM wants to commit
to or how much commitment to newer TR levels throughout the life of rNext
being supported on P9. Generally we're talking about 13 TR levels per OS
release.
Dan, I agree that one should stay current with the software. And your
security concern is very valid. And I'm not thinking the others are
disputing that. I think they just want more than four levels of OS
supported on each model of Power system.
Perhaps there is some technical reason why IBM decided to drop older
hardware. Perhaps there is hardware encryption on newer hardware that
rNext assumes is there. I know that I pestered IBM mercilessly to put
whether or not rNext was going to be supported on P9 hardware on the
upgrade planning site for my budgeting purposes. They kept putting me off
while they made that decision. It wasn't originally a "well, we have this
pattern, let's keep it up" mentality.

Power models do make a difference. I had a critical situation (in the IBM
sense of the word) with Power 9's when they first came out which got so bad
that we moved email off to O365. At the time our test box was still a P8.
Hey, application (Domino) stayed the same. OS stayed the same. Just a
hardware difference. And that level of OS was current and supported on
P9. So as much as many people poo-poo concerns like this, I know they are
very real.

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:23 PM Dan Bale <dan.bale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<geezer> Back in the day </geezer>, before the AS/400 was connected to the
world and security concerns were limited to users whose profiles were
enabled, it was difficult to justify spending on new iron when the current,
very solid iron and the unsupported OS were still going strong, and you
didn't need any of the new features of the new hardware / software. I
remember supporting CISC V3R2 long after V4R4 came out; as much as I tried,
I could never justify to management upgrading the hardware. "It just
worked" and it had more than enough capacity for company growth.

- Dan Bale

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
John Yeung
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 10:56 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "Pretty" announcement for End Of Support for Power 9.

On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:19 PM Rob Berendt <robertowenberendt@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Patrik,
This is one of those cases in which you fervently believe in what you
believe in. I've explained what I can and to try to do any more is a
waste of my time and a waste of yours.

It's true, we're going to believe what we believe.

Based on my experience, I believe Patrik is correct on the fundamental
point that IBM's way of doing scheduled (and forced!) obsolescence is
purely a strategy for generating revenue.

I am not versed enough in the finer points to argue specifics. What I can
say is that the pace of technological advancement is usually much faster
than the pace of increased business needs. Of course there are some large
and fast-growing businesses that are going to gobble up whatever IBM's
latest and greatest is, just to keep pace with demand.
And if their business is growing that fast, keeping current is not likely
to be a financial burden for them.

But the vast, vast, VAST majority of businesses don't grow anywhere near
that fast; and at some point, they arrive at a PowerX machine that is
WAAAAY overpowered for what their business needs. Yet they are strong-armed
into buying PowerX+1 (or hanging on until PowerX+2) anyway.

This doesn't sit well with me. As Patrik suggests, it's hard to imagine
any _technical_ reason why iNext couldn't run on Power9. For sure, there
are going to be occasional architecture changes, whether hardware or
software, that are significant enough to justify breaking compatibility.
But not with the regularity and pace at which IBM is steamrolling along.

John Y.

*** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this
communication may be confidential, and is intended only for the use of the
recipients named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return
it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy
of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this
message, please contact the sender. ***
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.