Talk:Z/VM

Restructure of articles about IBM mainframe operating systems
After a big edit of MVS I concluded that the whole set of articles about IBM mainframe operating systems from System/360 onwards needed to be re-structured to minimise overlap and to make clearer the evolutionary relationships between these operating systems (notably in memory management, which is historically a major distinguishing feature). There is already some support for this proposal. Please add comments at Talk: MVS. Philcha 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

VM timeline graphic
I noticed in the timeline shown here that it jumps from VM/370 to VM/XA. Between these two was VM/SP, which went through enough versions to merit mention as well. -- Bob Nix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.6 (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:VM mascot - teddy bear.gif
The image Image:VM mascot - teddy bear.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mantissa Corp, z/VOS, and x86 virtualization
I'm not sure how significant this will be. But next week the Mantissa Corportation will be announcing their z/VOS product. The announcement about their upcoming announcement says that with z/VOS "you can deploy and manage native x86 Windows® and Linux images under z/VM." It will be interesting to see what real information they can provide next week and integrate it into this article and possibly the other System z related article. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed source?
This goes far beyond the scope of VM since terms are defined elsewhere, but historically, VM was open source. That was not in the free sense of the term but in the sense that complete source code was given with the distribution. Licensees were free to modify it, but IBM maintained all commercial rights. In the late 1980s (possibly early 1990s) IBM started distributing newer components of the OS without source code. But they kept supplying source code for existing components of the OS. I have no idea what is currently being distributed, but from a historical standpoint, this was a very relevant feature. Much innovation resulted from user developed enhancements, some of which IBM incorporated into the OS, and some of which was an early equivalent of shareware for those who licensed the OS.

This does not meet the definitions of either closed source or open source that are given elsewhere in Wikipedia, but something should be done clarify this. VM Systems Programmers referred to it as open source, despite the current use. 50.0.106.145 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources to reference? --TreyGeek (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)