On Saturday, 11/18/2006 at 08:21 PST, Chaye Wala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you can fool all of the people all of the time that a mainframe performs > better then it indeed is a mainframe.
The phrase "performs better" is meaningless. It performs better AT WHAT? I don't know of anyone (IBMer or not) who would make such a dumb statement. > It is non standard character set representing nonstandard applications which > do not work You are misinformed. EBCDIC, like ASCII, is a broad reference to a set of standard character sets. You might want to go look at the ISO standards to see how many variations of ASCII and EBCDIC are defined. What's a "standard application"? The ones that allow you to make an airline reservation or rent a car? Or Apache, JBoss, MySQL, and other open source applications which run just fine on the mainframe, too? (You've read up on mainframe Linux, right? Linux runs on the mainframe. Standard applications run on Linux. Ergo, standard applications run on the mainframe.) > and can not be migrated Yeah. There are some mainframe applications that make assumptions about byte order, character set, and endianness, making it difficult for them to be migrated. Oh. Wait. I see the same thing with applications running on PCs. I guess it doesn't have much to do with the applications after all, but more with the programmers. > from a non standard platoform run by > bunch of stupids decieving themselves, knowingly that the same work can be > done by a much smaller hardware with losss lesscost is called a mainframe. Don't be a troll. NO ONE in our industry compares a mainframe to any other platform on the basis of a single application. The question is: What is the most cost-effective way to run 5000 servers? With a mix of server types, of course, INCLUDING the mainframe. Unless, of course, you have applications whose workloads are not suited to mainframes. I beg you not to render your next animated motion picture or model a nuclear explosion on a mainframe. > It takes a life time to open one's eyes if the eyesight was ruined by either > IBM or mainframe. I've never really understood some people's rabid rejection of mainframes. They're tools to be used for the right purpose. Just as with midrange and small systems, all the way down to cell phones. But to claim that mainframes do not have a place in IT just shows that you really haven't done any serious study of them. :-( Some people get their ideas of mainframes from movies. Just because Hollywood always references the mainframe in reverent tones, doesn't mean it's true and it doesn't mean IBMers or their customers think it's true, either. While that perception might be ok for the general public, I expect better from anyone who would hang out in IBM-MAIN. Alan Altmark ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
