On 7 Sep 2006 02:49:53 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >This bit stood out the most for me: > >"According to Sangho Yoon, director of the information strategy team at >Samsung, the decision to move off Big Iron was strictly financial." > >Moving their data warehousing and reporting systems to a superdome would make >some sense, but I would think reliability and security would be the top >priority for their operational systems.
Depending on how well they were actually using the tools available, the statement may or may not be true. Reliability is based on the least reliable component. COBOL is required to generate code that correctly (if slowly) handles decimal correctly. Most packages are written first for Unix or Windows (SAP, Oracle financials, etc.). If the new environment allows passwords and user-ids greater than 8 characters, it may be perceived as more secure. It would be interesting to compare the CPU power and memory of the old boxes with their replacements. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 10:47 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Another BIG Mainframe Bites the Dust > > >Maybe we won't know the details, the horror stories from administration >room. >However we will see if the company survive. There are companies which >got rid of mainframe and survived. It is possible. Sometimes it can be >profitable (less costly). > >Of course we can still "suspect" (or rather hope): what about security, >do they need more staff, maybe they were oversized very much (are YOU >oversized???), maybe their application was horribly inefective, maybe >they will have problems with EOQ/EOY, maybe they have problem with >response times, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
