So, "we" send data to some cloud and it is encrypted. Now they
have it and get a ransom ware attack.
Were is "our" data, since the cloud was our backup?
This is the question I ask.
Now the question becomes: Do "we" the "owners" have a second copy
somewhere?
Just thinking about the problems I've seen. Like an RV being
blown up in Nashville that took out internet service for a large
area.... Then there was L3 going down.....
And now AWS has caused a problem.....
What else do we run into now?
On 10/31/2025 5:30 PM, Rick Troth wrote:
> For mission critical workloads there is a move back to
private datacenters.
Good to hear.
For several years, I worked for a data protection company
(subsidiary of several "parent" companies). Great stuff. Phil
Smith's z/OS product is the top of the line in that portfolio.
It always made me nervous when customers put too much of their
stuff into the cloud. (Or anyplace off-site from systems THEY
CONTROL.)
The product was/is a STRONG cryptographic solution, so if the
data was protected before hitting the cloud, NO PROBLEM.
It was when they put the encryption/decryption services into
the cloud that I wanted to tell them "STOP! DON'T!".
But ... the customer is always right ... or so they tell me.
-- R; <><
On 10/31/25 10:33 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
One final thought from me.
Major companies that went to the cloud have many other
companies that get
hit when an issue impacts them from a Cloud provider; plausible
deniability or shared blame or whatever terms you like. For
mission
critical workloads there is a move back to private
datacenters. That said,
z/OS has to support seamlessly new runtimes at a reasonable
cost or what is
there is what is there.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 10:10 AM Gary Eheman
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:15:41 -0500, Enzo Damato <
[email protected]> wrote:
(snip)
While previously, any company of decent size that wanted
reliability and
performance over a certain threshold would have to hit up
their local
IBM sales representative, this changed with the PC
revolution around
1995ish, when Linux or Windows NT combined with high speed
networking
made it possible to achieve decent reliability and
decent performance for a fraction of the cost. Critically,
they also
allowed you to start small! This
(
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Google%E2%80%99s_First_Production_Server.jpg
)
was google's first server rack! The discussion about weather
or not
google would run better on a mainframe is pointless.
Google's first
servers were a bunch of home brew computers attached to a
surplus rack.
In no universe would they ever have been able to afford a
mainframe, and
the IBM sales rep would have likely laughed them out of the
room.
(snip)
Enzo Damato
When I saw the 1995 time frame mentioned, I decided to offer
up some
relevant history that occurred before Enzo's birth. I moved
over to IBM's
PC Server division from the mainframe technical marketing
support side in
1994 to work as part of a team on bringing a hybrid server
solution that
included the P/390 emulator card (still in development) to
market so that
more PC Server hardware could be sold (since that was the
primary goal of
the PC Server division). A simplified summary of how things
went down...
"Stay in your lane PC Servers! We own the mainframe market,"
said S/390
hardware division.
"Show us your less than 10 MIP strategy," said my PC Server
bosses to them.
"We don't have one."
"Ok. Then kindly step out of the way so we can sell more PC
Servers."
"But we control all the mainframe software you need," said
the software
division.
"Would you like to protect software revenue from software
that you already
own?"
"Yes," said the software division.
"Then how about we work together on a solution?"
And the result in 1995 was the PC Server 500 S/390 and the
introduction of
Entry Support Level (ESL) pricing for most S/390 software.
It was a good
thing to help slow some low-end erosion, but did nothing to
help growth.
IBM was already allowing the AS/400 division to eat the small
mainframe
customer market, and it did far more damage to the low-end
mainframe market
than PC Servers ever did to it in my opinion.
--
Gary Eheman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--
Regards,
Steve Thompson
MaGA:
Make Mainframes Great Again: They use radiators not flowing water.
They also can do more work with a watt of power than server farm servers.
They are designed for parallel multi-tasking from the factory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
