*** Original Author:  ADSM-L @ MARIST - ** Remote User **; 04/16/96 04:45pm

>
All,
I've read with interest the discussion on knowledge needed to support ADSM.
I'm an MVS tech support person so when I approach someone on another
platform (ie hpux, aix, etc...) I let them know up front that I'm not a Unix

.
.
.

It's my impression that the PC folks (netware, etc...) are the most
prejudiced against ADSM because, as we all know, a $3,000 desktop pc is much
more sophisticated and complex than a multi-million dollar MVS legacy system
so what do we MVS'ers have to contribute anyway?   ;-)

Good Luck - Let me know if I can help,
Dave
"Certified Adsm Fan"

*** Comments From: STEWAJM - Stewart, Mike; 04/17/96 07:44am

I've found here that the ADSM was well received by the
PC-type platforms, but has made almost no headway into the
Unix platforms.

Why?

1. Many of our Unix systems already have some local backup.
   The cost of a locally attach tape drive for a more costly
   Unix box is a smaller percentage of total machine cost,
   and seems more likely to be added than to a PC.
2. "Network bandwidth."
3. The server is running on an IBM machine.  Even worse, on
   MVS, no less.  Our PC users don't seem to have the anti-MVS
   sentiment the Unix users do.
4. Any of our machine types where there is a "manager", either
   Unix or a group of PC's, are reluctant to use ADSM.
   Most of our Unix machines have "managers"/"system admin's".
5. Loss of control and prestige, or fear of same.

I tend to believe all the reasons are really just
rationalizations based on the last reason, fear of loss of
control or prestige if a system manager begins depending
upon a central server.