New York Times: "Why Old Technologies Are Still Kicking"
Few readers of this blog are unfamiliar with Stewart Alsop's 1991 claim that in five years' time the last mainframe would be unplugged. It's become a piece of good humor over the years - with even Stewart himself sharing in the laugh by appearing in the pages of one of IBM's annual reports to "eat his words."
Still, the issue has always been one considered from the point of "if."
On Sunday, the New York Times took a "why" look at the dynamics behind the comings and goings - and mostly the staying power - of various technologies. The article is called "Why Old Technologies Are Still Kicking," and is certainly worth a read.
Front and center in this reporting is the IBM mainframe. The article even includes a colorful (well, one of them is in color) pair of mainframe photos that not only show how far the mainframe has come, but how far fashion and hair style seem to have evolved during the mainframe's lineage. See below (and be sure to check out the Times article).
| by Kevin Acocella | March 25, 2008 in History Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) |
Will Microsoft Windows be next on System z?
Anyone paying attention to the Sine Nomine demo, two weeks ago, now knows that Solaris is inevitably
coming to System z. In the wake of all of this, I have heard from a number of
you – and people throughout the industry about – you guessed it: “What’s next,
Windows?” I’m guessing many of you have
the same question. To really get at the
dynamics of this, we have to look to the past.
Back in the early 90's, Windows was not just on the x86
architecture (at the time, only on Intel – remember Wintel?). It was also running on
MIPS, Alpha and the PowerPC architecture. There's something a bit different
about the x86 architecture....this is a bit technical here, but it uses the Little Endian bit
representation within a byte while the RISC architectures under the popular
UNIX platforms and IBM's mainframe use Big Endian
architecture. Solaris and Linux were
written in a way that makes that bit representation transparent. But Microsoft
decided long ago that Windows would only run in Little Endian mode.
Back in 1994, there was a skunk works within the IBM
mainframe division that looked at running Windows NT as a native operating
system on what was then a 10-way S/390 platform. It figured out how to boot the
machine up as a Little Endian server and it could have run Windows across those
10 processors. But guess what? No hypervisor or virtualization capabilities
would exist. They have been written in Big Endian mode. So it would be an
entire mainframe dedicated to a single instance of Windows. My palm can do
that.
So, IBM realized then that this had no future in terms of
consolidation value. In turn, Microsoft decided to uniquely support the x86
architecture and the Alpha and MIPS implementations of Windows died a rather
quick death.
Next up was to bring some Windows portability to the
mainframe. So working with Bristol Technology (now a subsidiary of HP), IBM
looked at getting a set of Windows 32 bit APIs and its OLE and COM capabilities
on OS/390. This was just after IBM had announced its intention to brand OS/390
as a UNIX operating system. Bristol Technology had a license to the
Microsoft source code to facilitate that. Well, Microsoft must have gotten
afraid of the possibilities of Windows applications running easily on the
mainframe, so they took away the software license from
Bristol
. Bristol, in turn, sued them for unfair trade and they won. But by then, Microsoft’s approach had driven these types of developers from their platform. Today, Mainsoft Corporation provides a Windows portability layer across UNIX systems and z/OS, but we'll never see a day when Windows will run natively on the mainframe.
So what are the implications to the mainframe? Let’s start
with development tools for creating new applications. If you only use Microsoft
.Net development tooling, those solutions will be relegated to the Wintel
platform. Should those applications want to interoperate with the mainframe,
there are a variety of connectors that enable interoperability with both 3270
and SOAP/Web service based applications as well as distributed data requests. As mentioned earlier, you can use Mainsoft's technology to translate the .Net code into Java byte codes and run that on z/OS and Linux for System z as well. Therefore you get some developers synergy, but deployment options beyond Wintel platforms.
If you really want cross platform deployment from the Windows desktop environment, eclipse.org is an open standards group comprised of a number of leading tooling vendors to facilitate rapid application development, good tool integration and provide a flexible choice for platforms to which those applications can be deployed. Leveraging this tool set will facilitate exploitation of mainframe technology and is highly recommended to deliver the best qualities of service for software running on System z. IBM’s Rational Developer for z is an implementation of the eclipse capabilities for System z.
| by JimPorell | December 14, 2007 in History Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0) |
the greaterIBM connection
One of the many innovations Sam Palmisano has spearheaded at IBM is the idea of reaching out to "alumni". The first initiative was a few years ago when he hosted a reception for a group of former executives of the company. A few were retired but most were in senior positions in other companies. That was just the beginning and now the idea of reaching out has been expanded -- big time. The number of past and present IBMers is probably close to a million people. Establishing communications with such a huge base can be nothing but a good thing for the company.
When I left engineering school and joined IBM in 1967, it was common to look for a job at a company and expect to stay there your entire career. Nobody thinks that way anymore. If you tell someone you were with a company for decades, they might ask "what's the matter, couldn't you find any other jobs?". Another change is that in the old days if someone left the company they were considered a traitor and barred from coming back. Today, there are many executives that left the company at some point, got some experience at one or more other companies, and then brought that experience back into IBM. Some have come and gone multiple times. The turnover has strengthened the company.
And now we have social networks. In the early stages there was a perception that social networking meant eleven year-old girls on MySpace. Now businesses are realizing that it is more likely forty or fifty year-old business people on Facebook and Xing and LinkedIn and Plaxo Pulse. The Internet has enabled everyone to be connected to everyone. Whether it is reading blogs, posting to wikis, updating status on Facebook, or making new connections through viral invitations, it is clear that a big company like IBM has a lot to gain by "connecting" past, present, and future IBMers to each other and with the company. IBM calls it "the greaterIBM connection". On Monday evening the company hosted a greaterIBM reception at the Metrazur at Grand Central Station in New York. More than four hundred attended. It was good to reconnect with some colleagues I had not seen for quite a few years.
Will social networking payoff in business terms? Nobody knows for sure but in my opinion it is certain -- as soon as we see the New York Times run a front page story that social networking is a fad, in trouble or peaking out we will have confirmation that success is a sure thing. A short term inhibitor is that there are so many different social networks. As web standards evolve I am confident that we will have a world where people will create one profile and then be able to decide which part of their profile is accessible in which networks.
IBM sees the potential and is investing the time and resources to build a large and active network. The possibilities are endless -- collaboration on projects, networking to hire or get hired, crafting deals, referrals to and from IBM and its business partners. As a bonus, social networking is fun and good for morale. I look forward to continuing to be a part of the greaterIBM connection as it evolves. Upon e-tirement in 2001 after nearly four decades at IBM, I don't really feel like I left anyway! The stories that I have been writing since 1998 over at the patrickWeb blog fall into a number of categories. One section is devoted to "IBM Happenings". I am sure I will also be writing and linking at the greaterIBM connection along with others. Cross linking will increase the overall "connectedness". That's what the web is all about. I am really proud that IBM is taking networking and the blogosphere so seriously.
the greaterIBM connection
Greater IBM Wiki
| by John Patrick | November 14, 2007 in History, Innovation, People Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) |
Maximizing the Mainframe
eWeek and CIO Insight had a nice article on the resurgence of the mainframe. In the article the author, Darryl Taft likens that the mainframe continues to go on and on like the Energizer bunny.
The fun doesn't end there, though. Ben Worthen takes that article and posts to his blog at the Wall Street Journal: The Dinosaurs won't die! There's a lot of truth to that. We recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of the mainframe. I can remember when Carl Conti was the leader of the Data Processing Division back when the mainframe was 25 years old. At the time, he stated that the Dinosaurs lived for over 25 million years. As such, this dinosaur of a computer, at a mere 25 years then, had a long and storied life ahead of us. Still in its infancy then, this venerable mainframe has a long way to go.
In response to the WSJ blog, I posted the following:
Great post. You’re hitting on a really important trend: corporate data centers around the world are stuffed with too many computers that consume way too much energy, take up too much real estate and cost too much to administer. That’s a big reason for the renaissance of the IBM mainframe — one of the most technically advanced and secure computing systems in the world.
Reflecting over a billion dollars of investment over the past decade, the mainframe’s automated virtual environment sets the standard for consolidating large numbers of smaller servers to save space, labor and energy. And this is not just about the mainframe. The mainframe is open and plays nice with other hardware and software — including kiosks, desktops, ATMs, PDAs or web browsers as the new human computer interfaces (instead of those “old school” punch cards). This openness along with secure, reliable operations… makes it a great hub for global collaboration at companies running around the clock.
One excellent source of
information on the mainframe’s strengths is Gartner’s
recently-completed in-depth study of how one customer, Nationwide
Insurance, consolidated hundreds of smaller servers onto the system.
Nationwide projects its savings of $15 million over three years,
including a 50 percent decrease in hardware and operating system
support costs and an 80 percent reduction in floor space and energy
usage. You can read the full report here:
http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/gc/reprints/ibm/external/volume2/article13/pdf/article13.pdf
We've got plenty of history behind us and more to create with this constantly evolving Dinosaur and it will just keep on running.
| by JimPorell | July 24, 2007 in History Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) |
Core Connectors
Greater IBM has made a "call for core connectors". Hmmm. Core connectors? What kind of cores are they that need to be connected? Most of the current IBMers are not old enough to remember "core" memory that was used in mainframes. Core connectors also sounds like something from a Lego parts list. Both of these thoughts are nostalgic but we all know that is not what IBM has in mind.
The goal is to build a social networking community -- a "place" where the possibilities are endless -- collaboration on projects, personal networking for jobs and deals, referrals to and from IBM, and networking just for the fun of it. One of the key questions being asked is how does Greater IBM get highly-networked 'core connectors' to spend the time to help get things going and spur organic growth of the community. Not easy for sure.
The challenge is that the people who are the best networkers are already so busy networking that it is hard to motivate them to take on yet another "channel" of communications. I encounter the same challenge at the numerous boards where I am privileged to serve and that have the same goals as IBM -- building their communities. I don't claim to have the magic answer but in short the best approach I have seen over the years is to apply tenacious program management, just as IBM is doing. Occasional emails from people encouraging the "cc's" to visit the blog and or group and post something eventually work. It is a given that the people with the most to contribute are also the ones with the least time and so the occasional nudge often causes things to happen.
The other angle is to publicize success stories about how the community has actually helped someone. It is best if the person actually helped tells their own story -- again perhaps with a little prodding. The successes are often subtle and indirect. It isn't that someone posts "I need a job" and they get an email with an offer for the dream job. More likely the job (or deal) comes from someone who knows someone who knows someone who read something about an opportunity or a person and then was able to make the connection. Sometimes there are multiple bank shots involved. Here is an example of what I mean.
I started writing "reflections" in 1996 and they evolved into my blog. In the early days of RSS (really simple syndication) many people didn't know what a blog reader was and didn't know how to include an RSS feed into their browser or news portal. I started enabling people to "subscribe" to my blog in a way that generates an email version of each story that I write. There are now more approximately 400 people who read patrickWeb via email. When readers like a story they tend to forward it to their friends and this results in more subscribers and more readers. Some of the readers are reporters. Sometimes a reporter will send an email asking for an interview. The interview gets covered in the press. XYZ Company decides to hold a conference for their customers and they call or visit the Washington Speakers Bureau to get an outside speaker. The WSB refers XYZ to the interview that was in the press and sets up an engagement for a paid speech. In some cases the story that lead to the chain of events may have had nothing to do with the ultimate subject of interest to XYZ -- it was the communications that lead to something that lead to something, etc. The same principles apply to getting a job or landing a deal.
Building the community and getting tangible results from it takes a lot of time and tenacity. Greater IBM is on the case and making progress. I encourage all of us out there with stories to tell to keep telling them. You never know where they will lead.
Other patrickWeb stories about blogging
Other patrickWeb stories about IBM
| by John Patrick | August 27, 2006 in History, People Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) |
Mainframe code presents problems?
A discussion thread from the IMS-Listserver, that has been going over the last few days:
Did anyone get a chance to read the following article?
This seems to imply that big banks will be migrating off the mainframe (IMS) real soon.
Also, it mentions SABRE which is American Airlines TPF (Transactions Processing Facility) also known as ACP (Airline Control Program). Most TPF applications are written in assembler. They are very small and very fast. TPF programs track everything from reservations on millions of airline flights, advanced seat selection and on-time performance of aircraft. I wonder how well a network of distributed servers can handle what is essentially a huge inventory application with very perishable product?
Any comments?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW. As an alumnus of the long defunct Eastern Airlines; this brings back memories that are older than I admit to being. Eastern collaborated with IBM on the original ACP and sold a copy to American for what was then the 'world record' price for a piece of software. It may still be the 'record'; depending on how you define 'single function' software.
Notably, AMR only speaks of the high cost of conversion. It doesn't sound to me like they are seriously considering replacement. If anyone from SABRE monitors this forum; it would be fascinating to hear how many transactions per second they are processing these days. That would spawn a discussion in this forum of whether or not IMS could yet handle that volume.
IMS transaction integrity would be a HUGE leap forward. When an ACP transaction died, the application program was responsible for backout/recovery/cleanup/everything. Ponder that the next time an airline can't find a record of your reservation.
I pursued converting Eastern's reservation system to IMS Fast Path in the mid 1980s. Our ACP group viewed that as a call for jihad and Eastern was spiraling into bankruptcy so rapidly that the only positive outcome was giving me something to discuss with Peggy Rader.
ACP/TPF was a brilliant piece of code for it's time; but, that was a long time ago. It never approached IMS Reliability. Dale
P.S. 'Financial' institutions will likely migrate away from IMS whenever someone produces a database & transaction processor that is more reliable than IMS (sometime after pigs learn to fly).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great discussion! As an Alumnus of the defunct Piedmont Airlines and USAIR, I could not agree more with Dale. Brilliantly put. However, the sad news here is that the Mainframe is NOT a strategic direction for my corporation no matter what you say or what proof you have to show otherwise. No way to get anyone to look at the tremendous cost of running everything on a gazillion servers or how many people it takes to support those servers not to mention the non-24x7 availability.
The most puzzling thing to me is the three-day reorg. When was the last time one of those ran on the mainframe, IMS especially? Probably only one prior to converting it to make-sense products like MAXM Reorg or even Online Reorg if using HALDB.
I feel IBM let us all down. In technical conferences of the past, I have brought that topic up. IBM Marketing expected the individual corporate techies to drive technology and save the mainframe. That went away in the 80's and early 90's. Who listens to us now?
Now the CIO's get the common trade journals. Where was the mainframe being marketed there? Where was IMS, MVS, CICS or DB2 being marketed? No where. That, my friends, is the problem. Newer technologies came and crept up on us and our naivety felt the dependable nature of the Mainframe would win out. Wake up.
We all know we have the most stable systems around. You can't compare the response times or reliability with Open Systems. But let's make way for all those servers which are now beginning to take up areas in the data center that resemble the old DASD and CPU farms. My goodness, has anyone seen the new servers? They look just like old 360's. Try to convince upper management the Mainframe is the best investment and they now look at you like you just swallowed poison. How very tragic. I worked on both TPF and IMS at Piedmont
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, the first thing I'm getting from this discussion is that at one time or another, just about every IMS DBA or systems programmer on earth must have worked for a major airline that has merged, gone belly-up, or come close. Count me in that group as an ex-US Airways alumnus.
<<begin rant>> Like others, I find this discussion fascinating. I'd been working as an IMS developer for less that a year in the early 80s when "friends" and trade publications began advising me that IMS was a dinosaur and would soon be eclipsed and replaced by DB2. The fact that we're all still discussing it tells you how accurate that prediction turned out to be.
During that same period, I attended night school at the University Pittsburgh ADA
At one of my recent employers (and there have been MANY), during an orientation session the CIO discussed the technology the company was using and would use in the future. There company hires a significant number of IROCs (Idiots Right Out of College), and most of them know only that CompSci educators have told them mainframe technology is outdated, and one questioned the CIO's statement that the mainframe was absolutely integral to the company's plans. The CIO put it into perspective by suggesting that rather than focusing on the terms "mainframe" and "servers" and seeing the two as being different species, that people unfamiliar with mainframes instead view them as the biggest, fastest, most powerful, most dependable, most cost effective servers imaginable, and understand that the mainframe is simply the best choice for many businesses processing high volumes of transactions and requiring speed and dependability above all else. Isn't that what IMS, z/OS and mainframes are all about? At most places I've been where both IMS and servers were used, the server application required far more DBAs and far more outages than IMS. When company executives make decisions to arbitrarily convert to server applications because that's what they see being hawked in magazines and trade journals, they're making technology decisions the same way they'd shop for a car, and that's a disservice to the companies for whom they're supposed to be guardians. <<end of rant>>
I agree with Ivan, who said earlier that the demise of mainframes and IMS has been greatly exaggerated. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I really like the discussion this brings out, with Avram comments, I started out my career in 1969 with the state of Pennsylvania
After the end of the Vietnam war, I can remember working 7 days just to get 5 days work done, unemployment went sky high in the early 70's, but we still got the claims processed.
Today these systems even have GUI front ends on them, to give them the modern look. They are kinda of like the old Timex commercials, they take a lickin' and keep on ticking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re the question: "Anyone have any idea from IBM side for example, what's the relative revenue and profit between various *series? If mainframe is still profitable for IBM..."
Earlier someone posted a link to a NY Times article from this month that stated this;
"all mainframe-related hardware, software and services account for a quarter of its [IBM's] revenue and, more important, about half of I.B.M.'s total operating profit"
So one would assume pretty important then!
I know of a large company in the UK
So perhaps IBM think they can get more money from their customers by selling them non-mainframe products!?!
I think IBM need to encourage their mainframe customers to leverage their mainframe investment. All too often I think IBM is sending consultants who know nothing about mainframes through the doors of their customers. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
My concerns:
- Marketing for mainframe in individual shops, more and more shops the application people have access to business and not system people. Applications tend to market to business in silo view and don't need to worry about integrated application advantage at all. Business naturally will favour the slick views and the appearant savings. - Marketing for mainframe as a whole - Missing. Anyone have any idea from IBM side for example, what's the relative revenue and profit between various *series? If mainframe is still profitable for IBM, some money should be channel into making a better image. Or does IBM think a wild mazed IT environment is really the best thing for IBM? - Charge back scheme in various shops are probably more mature in the mainframe, and I wouldn't be surprised that many distributed system cost other than equipment is buried within the mainframe chargeback. - Software cost on mainframe - what a impressive system, that alone can bury mainframe, can't say anymore! - When your application enviornment start to migrate little bits to distributed enviroment, this creates an interesting inbalance because they will take all the easily done and cheap parts with them, leaving the difficult parts in the mainframe, thereby making the mainframe with higher percentage of mutants. After a few iterations, the applications left on host all look like dogs breakfast, and guess what, the system people have to deal with them. And then the application people say 'see, z is difficult and unmanageable' - a nice twist from 'the application is a mutant'.
On the other hand, I myself believe that distributed computing for high volume integrated environment is got to be hoax, we will be in high demand when the wave is over.
| by pwarmstrong | May 12, 2006 in History, Mainframe Contest, Programming Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) |
Open Documents -- Part 3
The battle over OpenDocument Format has begun and Microsoft is using their traditional brass knuckles approach. It was revealed this week in some blogs that a recent article, "Massachusetts Should Close Down OpenDocument", which ran at Fox News was written by a journalist hired by Microsoft. (See an interesting rebuttal). The stakes are high. The issue is who owns documents, the document creator or the software that was used to create the documents.
Let's make it personal and down to earth. Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their children all have computers on the local area network at home. They recently had a busy weekend. Mr. Smith created a presentation which he will take to a conference and present using his ThinkPad. Mrs. Smith wrote a newsletter which will be distributed to dozens of members in a local non-profit organization she belongs to. The Smiths' daughter completed a school term paper replete with graphical images, clip art, and photographs. The Smiths' son is a graduate student in business and he developed a spreadsheet to reflect a ten-year financial plan for a new business idea. Who owns these four documents? (read more)
| by John Patrick | October 15, 2005 in Future, History, Innovation, People, Programming, Systems Technology Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) |
Open Documents
The debate about the OpenDocument format is just beginning. Massachusetts put a stake in the ground with their decision to adopt ODF for all employees in the Commonwealth and for anyone doing business with them. This may go down in history as a bold and important move. But Microsoft, which opposes ODF, will not give up easily.
There was an OpenOffice.org 2005 conference in Koper-Capodistria, Slovenia last week at which a professor delivered a keynote speech entitled: "Should I Adopt OpenOffice?". It is reported that after taking a few questions from the audience, a loud voice boomed out from the back of the auditorium saying "In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a Microsoft technical officer." The person then launched at attack on the professor about the information that had just been presented. The gentleman then claimed that the European Union had accepted Microsoft file formats as "sufficiently open" and finally, he directly attacked the new OASIS OpenDocument Format. It was further reported that the professor had not even mentioned the OpenDocument Format or Microsoft's "Office Open XML". Needless to say, Microsoft is very defensive about the subject. Why? They have a monopoly and they want to keep it. Maintaining some degree of control over the details behind the formats gives a vendor more flexibility in developing their software and in deciding when and how to offer upgrades. Having to work with formats that are controlled by an outside independent third party is definitely harder.
Microsoft's behavior is very reminiscent of IBM's behavior in the 1970's and 1980's. Numerous file formats were proposed by other vendors but IBM consistently maintained that the mainframe was the best place to keep data. IBM totally controlled the formats. The difference between IBM's behavior and Microsoft's is that IBM heard the market speak out about the Internet, open source, Linux, and other grass roots ideas and rather than fight the changes, IBM adopted them and in fact is leading the charge. Microsoft has done this in some ways, particularly in the area of web services, but when it comes to Office, they clearly want to maintain some hooks that are not open to the user. (read more)
| by John Patrick | October 3, 2005 in History, Programming Permalink | Comments (0) |
WinFS versus System/360
Interesting blog post from Guy Kewney, the i-Kew, over at vnunet.com.
He starts by talking to Microsoft WinFS and segues to some S/360 performance stuff:
I remember Hedley Voysey, doyen of computer commentators, back in the 1970s, once explaining that "in order to be taken seriously, a real-time interactive system must respond to a user query within two to three seconds." Any longer, and the user will naturally think it's broken.
Just to put that in context: he was writing about a system communicating at 1200 bits per second over a "glass teletype" terminal, to several hundred users, based on a System /360 mainframe from IBM with a total processing capacity very roughly equivalent to an original IBM PC AT and a set of 3350 disks and the important thing was, it was optimised for user response.
Its often good to look backwards in order to understand how the future will play out.
Even Bill Gates has moments of 360 envy. Read more about that in my tribute to Bob Evans.
| by James Governor | September 22, 2005 in History Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) |
Just Enough Is Good Enough
We used to say that with mainframes there was never a problem exchanging information between computers -- as long as each computer was a mainframe! The point was that IBM mainframe computers really excelled at compatibility. A customer could order a complete mainframe system for a new location. The central processor would arrive from Poughkeepsie, the tape drives from Boulder, the disk drives from San Jose, the card reader from Endicott, the network controller from Raleigh, and other components from IBM factories all over the world. After the IBM CE (customer engineer) got everything hooked up and tested, it would be turned over to the customer. Files could immediately be exchanged with other company locations. Everything worked because IBM assured 100% compatibility by controlling all the interfaces. This was good. Microsoft is trying to do the same thing with Windows. This is not good. What's the difference? The Internet.
The Internet has changed everything. It is built on open standards and increasingly systems and procedures and data which use the Internet are alos becoming open. I am quite excited about what OASIS is doing with the OpenDocument standard. Massachusetts may be just the first of governments around the world who are mandating OpenDocument. From my perspective it is a matter of "Just Enough Is Good Enough".
| by John Patrick | September 3, 2005 in History, Systems Technology Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) |
Favorite Mainframes
We all have our favorite mainframes. For many it will surely be the new and sophisticated mainframe Z9. For me there are four mainframes that standout among my memories. First was the GE 225 at Lehigh University where I was an electrical engineering student (1963-1967). The programming language used was called WIZ and it was very similar to BASIC. Programs were literally written on paper and then punched into "IBM Cards" using a keypunch. The deck of cards was then "submitted" through a plastic window. Hours later (sometimes days) the results of the program, known as a "printout" were placed in bins where students could pick them up.
I was fortunate to be able to go to graduate school at the University of South Florida part time while I was serving in the U.S. Army at the U.S. STRIKE Command in Tampa, Florida (STRIKE stood for swift tactical retaliation in any known environment). My masters thesis was in operations research and GPSS was the programming language I used to build simulation models. Like using the GE 225, programs were created on punched cards and submitted through a window -- this time to an IBM System 360 Model 65. The model 65 was a giant of computing at the time -- many times faster than the GE 225. Mainframe #3 is one I got to know up close and personal. (read more)
| by John Patrick | August 16, 2005 in History Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) |
Why don't toasters work properly?
I have just read an intriguing article in the Daily Telegraph. It would appear that despite the fact that the Romans (what did the Romans ever give us? – see below) mastered toast, manufacturers are still struggling to create an effective electric toaster.
Now, I do wonder how they determined that the Romans made good toast – did they find a piece lying around somewhere? However, that’s not the point.
In the article it says “dazzling displays and design can’t hide the fact that most toasters aren’t very good at their core function – making toast.”
I would like to offer a slight change to that sentence: “dazzling displays and design can’t hide the fact that most distributed systems aren’t very good at their core function – supplying a production level operating system.”
Yes, I am a lot older than James and the others here, and I was brought up in a mainframe world. I was raised on an operating system that was designed to do multi-tasking, recover itself from errors, was secure, and did not have to be rebooted every ten minutes. For more boring details about my life, click here or here.
Do I want everyone to throw away their wondrous new pretty Unix, Linux and Wintel boxes? No. Do I want people to throw away 30 years of hard-earned experience in how to run production systems? Also no.
What I want people to do is to take the best pieces from each world and build truly useful systems, which are designed to make businesses run better.
Ah yes, the Romans
They knew which side of the road you should drive on – Napoleon ruined it all later
| by pwarmstrong | August 4, 2005 in History, Innovation, People, Systems Technology Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0) |
The Mainframe Geek
Recently on Slashdot I found myself reading many postings on the topic "What is Mainframe Culture?". It turns out that Mainframers have a real sense of identity. In fact, they seem to me like the prototype geeks. A geek is defined as a "person who is interested in technology". I went to Geekfinder and entered 'mainframe' as search expression. Sure enough, the result list had over 2000 matches. What would qualify you to apply for one of those?
You might be a real mainframe geek if ...
- YOU WRITE ALL YOU EMAIL UPPERCASE.
- when called to court, you look for a Principle Of Operation to take your oath on.
- you still think they should have never started casual Friday.
- you have a large supply of punchcards that you use to write shopping list on the back
- you have either grey hair or no hair.
- all your tattoos are in EBCDIC.
Seriously. There is one personality trait that mainframe people learned early on: to share. Sharing a bag of candies means that you don't eat them all yourself. It also means not to give them away to the first guy around, but to save some for your friends. Mainframers grew up with the concept that they don't own the machine and are not the only one online. That they cannot grab all the resources all the time. They had to apply for machine time to run their programs through the reader. When they started to use screen interface, they logged on to the "Time Sharing Option". Writing batch jobs, the first thing to declare is which resources are needed.
The concept of virtualization, sharing a system through the use of abstracted and architected interfaces, is inherent in the mainframe culture. Slowly the Unix geeks find out that more than one application can run in an Operating System. Recently more and more Windows geeks run multiple Operating Systems on the same machine. On Virtual Machines. Pretty soon, they all will cherish the mainframe culture. They will think twice before re-booting an OS just because there could be many other applications running. They will no longer turn the power off just because they see the blue screen of death. Clint Boulton has written a piece about a 24 year old programmer now hooked on mainframes.
In a virtualized IT infrastructure the server, network and storage resources are shared among all the business applications. Running a successful data center means to assign these resources to the applications and transactions according to business priorities along efficiency, reliability, availability and performance. If this what you do, treat yourself to a state-of-the-art caffeine delivery vehicle. You are real mainframe geek.
| by Boas Betzler | July 25, 2005 in Future, History, People Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (1) |
The postings on this site are our own and don’t necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of our employers.
© Copyright 2005 the respective authors of the Mainframe Weblog.
