I rather think that "they" (client/server model... "we're getting rid of the mainframe") tried that in the 90's.
On 5/14/09, Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric Bielefeld wrote: >>I just received another z/Journal email sponsored by Microsoft urging us to >> get off the mainframe and going to .NET. They refer you to the following >> web site: > >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/mainframe/whoknew/default.aspx > >>I would think that would be counter productive. I'm sure that Microsoft >> pays z/Journal big bucks to advertise, but if every mainframe user >> followed MS advertising, there wouldn't be a need for the z/Journal. > > > Here's an excerpt from Bob Thomas's publisher's letter in the May/June issue > of Mainframe Executive, which is directly relevant: > > "This May/June 2009 issue of Mainframe Executive marks our eighth issue > published. Although the target audience for both Mainframe Executive and > z/Journal is users of IBM mainframe computer systems, I think it's important > to remind readers that both magazines are totally independent publications. > [He means not owned by IBM, not "independent of each other"] > > "As our readers have no doubt already noticed, the vast majority of > articles, white papers, and ads in both magazines are clearly pro-mainframe. > And while we are upfront about our mainframe bias, we do recognize that the > mainframe isn't the optimum solution in all situations. So, we also will > feature articles, white papers, and ads dealing with mainframe alternatives > as a service to our readers. Because the readers we serve mostly reside > within large public and private organizations of all types, we feel it's our > duty to objectively deliver information for all types of mainframe-centric > computing considerations that occur within an enterprise and aid in > achieving business objectives." > -30- > > And of course he's right -- mainframe fan that I am, I'm not going to argue > that it's *always* the right answer. Pretty well every shop has > Microsoft/Intel stuff, so it's a reasonable assumption that companies are > already aware that there are alternatives. It's also a reasonable assumption > that they're smart enough to evaluate what's actually best for their > business, despite our (and I include myself!) bleating about "management by > magazine". > > On the other hand, blind, fan-boy mainframe idolatry is just childish: > ignoring the competition and hoping it will go away doesn't work. We tried > that in the 90s, remember? > -- > ...phsiii > > Phil Smith III > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -- All the best, Scott T. Harder ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
