Well, best of luck.
Of course it’s disheartening to see another VM shop bite the dust but that’s
the way things seem to be going these days.
Perhaps this is a sign of the times.
Of course there will, for the most part, be mainframes
around for those organizations which require lots of horse power but that
doesn’t
translate into an increase in mainframe shops running z/VM and/or z/OS. As we
all know, IBM mainframe sales were down
last year.
And most of all, this situation doesn’t translate into new
mainframe jobs of any flavor, whether they be for older highly experience
Systems
Programmers or some newbie fresh out of college who has taken some classes in a
program IBM has formulated.
All what we have here is a situation were there is a pool of
both experienced systems programmers and would be systems programmers who are
unemployed.
--- On Tue, 1/5/10, Richard Troth <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Richard Troth <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Moving on: The University of Maine (System) shuts down mainframe
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, January 5, 2010, 2:34 PM
Dave --
This is ridiculous. Do you really want to start a religious war on
the value of Windows ... on this discussion list?
To your two points, cost and flexibility, I dig in for further
analysis as follows.
COST
Windows is not more cost effective. It carries a finer grained price
point profile than MVS or VM or even most Unix. But it is hardly
"cost effective" (for servers) in any shop bigger than a local funeral
parlor. Given the availability of Linux (and before that, low end
Unix) even its smaller per-unit charge is at risk.
I will abstain from repeating the scalability numbers we all know and
love because I am lazy. You get the point. Windows is inexpensive at
the start but quite the opposite later.
FLEXIBILITY
Windows is actually LESS flexible (for servers) when you consider that
it cannot run (traditionally) without a mouse as well as keyboard.
The very idea is counter to anything like "lights out". But that's
just one point.
What is flexibility?
Linux, traditional Unix, VM, and even MVS have so many more knobs to
turn than Windows does. And Windows presents more penalty when you
start "turning knobs" than do these other systems. I state this
without specific evidence because having heard the horror stories more
than once, I have filed the info away: one does not adjust Windows.
If you disagree, and the moderator will indulge us, then I will start
finding and posting documented evidence.
Now to my two points: sexiness and vanity.
SEXINESS
Windows is familiar. That at a minimum is comfort. It is emotional.
Salesmen LOVE when you get emotional. Do you yourself not know
Windows enough to drive its menus and figure out some amount of
configuration? But menu-driven config does not scale past one or two
servers, and then we're back to cost. So perhaps I have stretched and
implied that anything salsemen love is sexy. But I did not mean that.
Windows really is (my opinion) nice looking.
Windows is graphical ... in its very name. (And as I suggested in a
prior paragraph, one cannot usually turn off the graphics, which gets
us back into flexibility. But I digress.) Graphics are sexy. 3D is
even sexier, but who can argue that visual offers more immediate
gratification than verbal? Pictures are appealing.
VANITY
One definition of "vanity" is a self focus. Windows is an excellent
candidate for per-user service. I prefer Linux in that role only to
avoid corporate entanglement and "closed source" bondage, NOT because
there is something wrong with the op sys. Windows supports an
individual user quite nicely. But for servers ... not so well. I
submit to you that many customers have decided on Windows because they
only brought in their own experience, and that with the presentation
end. Might as well use the vanity mirror in your bath room for the
furnace at Odeilo.
Another English definition of "vanity" is triviality or hollowness.
(Am trying to avoid the blunt "lack of value" because I already said
Windows DOES have some value.) Using Windows for server service in
your data center is vanity. Unless driven by vendor requirements for
software that you chose for other reasons than flexibility or
scalability, Windows is simply NOT the right choice for that
infrastructure.
-- R; <><
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 07:57, Dave Wade <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Troth
>> Sent: 05 January 2010 01:04
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Moving on: The University of Maine (System)
>> shuts down mainframe
>>
>>
>> Actually, Jack nailed it. (And so did Solomon, for that matter.)
>>
>> In context, running "the stuff" on Windows is truly nothing
>> new under the sun. But some shops will do that because
>> someone thinks Windows is sexier than VM or MVS or Unix or
>> ... whatever. Vanity!
>
> The reasons folks use Windows isn't anything to do with "Sexiness" more cost
> and flexibility.
>
>>
>> I confess that I find Ecclesiastes depressing, but less
>> depressing than U. Maine shutting down VM. Bummer.
>>
>> -- R; <><
>
