Well of course, Dean, Timothy makes perfect sense. You should believe everything your vendors say, without any verification, right? ;-)
At the last shop I worked at (a government shop), they had a study done to evaluate what platform they should be running on, and the study proposed Oracle running on Sun servers. I later found out (to my utter lack of surprise), that the study had been done free of charge. I will give you exactly one guess who it was that did the study gratis. Of course, the conclusion was the one that was desired by those that asked for the study (upper management), who are convinced that the mainframe is obsolete and expensive. The "study" is being used as a justification to spend 10's of millions of dollars to replace the mainframe. Of course, the complete lack of public benchmarks for the mainframe make it impossible to refute the performance conclusions of the so called study, so I think it actually hurts IBM, even if the benchmarks would not be in favor of the mainframe. IBM's refusal to submit (or allow others to do so) mainframe benchmark scores allows others to make wild claims about how slow mainframes are, without any way to refute such claims, leaving us (the mainframe proponents) completely unarmed. >>> Dean Kent 7/17/2007 3:03:45 PM >>> Instead, Timothy Sipples suggests (and I paraphrase from his reply to me) "if you don't know, talk to your IBM rep - he'll tell you what you need". Sure, he'll tell me I need a Sun system instead of an IBM system - right? Or perhaps I should go talk to Sun or HP or Dell to find out what best suits my needs. If you care about the platform, you should care about the problem... or so it seems to me. Regards, Dean
