On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 08:25:16 AM PDT, Bill Johnson wrote:
> The narcissism here is amazing. To claim IBM doesn’t know what they are doing
It's a bit extreme to say its narcissism when its actually frustration at some
of IBM business choices. On the whole, I consider IBM excellent compared to how
other companies but it's undeniable that they have made some bonehead choices.
Was it a smart decision for IBM to sell the software that became Microsoft? How
about creating OS/2 a few years later to fill the void they sold?
My personal pet peeve is "cloud computing". I attended some of the
specification meetings and noted that IBM was involved. Except for the API's,
the specification was Sysplex concepts which excited the Unix world. 2 years
later, many parts were removed because Unix could not implement the concepts.
Worse yet, IBM never touted z/OS as cloud enabled from day one. Sysplex is
fairly simple to implement. The Unix implementation requires clustering, big
data and a few other things. IBM RHEL is popular by businesses because
simplified setup.
> aren’t smarter than the managers at IBM.
My experience is limited to IBM'ers in the trenches which are very sharp. We
shouldn't speak badly of IBM managers but we need someone to blame for the bad
business choices and it's not the people in the trenches.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 08:25:16 AM PDT, Bill Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:
The narcissism here is amazing. To claim IBM doesn’t know what they are doing
and some dudes on the internet do. There are 10,000+ mainframes. That would
extrapolate to tens of thousands of systems programmers worldwide. I’m fairly
certain the few hundred here, of which 20-30 dominate 90% of the banter, aren’t
smarter than the managers at IBM.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, August 7, 2023, 11:16 AM, Steve Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
Choir here. Maybe you should explain this to IBM marketing and
"C" level management? To bad they aren't A level managers. ;-)
Just say'n'.
Steve Thompson
On 8/6/2023 10:57 PM, Jon Perryman wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 06:36:52 AM PDT, Radoslaw Skorupka wrote:
>> There is NO DEFINITION.Of course there is a definition otherwise it's
>> jabberwocky. Not one person is willing to accept the actual definition as
>> given in all dictionaries: a large computer shared by many people. My point
>> is that today, every computer used as a server is a mainframe. System z has
>> fallen to the ranks of a server and mainframe should not be used.
>> Everyone may use it's own imagination.
> Made up definitions are either jabberwocky or slang.
>
>> Of course some definition may be less popular than other.
> So you are saying everyone's definition is correct as long as that person
> knows what it means.
>
>> IMHO, The most commonly used definition
>> NOWADAYS is: IBM System Z.
>
> Common use of a word doesn't mean people use it correctly. My point is that
> everyone is using "mainframe" incorrectly. Either System z is a server or all
> servers are mainframes. Either change the definition or people should use it
> correctly.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
