Tracy R Reed([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:25:19AM -0700: > > Wade Curry wrote: > > Be careful! Your reasoning is starting to sound dangerously > > similar to a mainframer's! ;-) > > I completely agree with the mainframer's reasoning. All except the bit > about spending millions on highly proprietary hardware. >
If the mainframers were the ones footing the bills, then the cost might enter into their reasoning. As it is, they tend to focus on the technical aspects. Still, the costs are eroding the market for mainframes. (Depends on whom you ask.) Interestingly enough, it isn't the hardware costs that are the biggest problem; it's the software. Software is generally charged for by the MSU. The vendor (IBM or other vendor) charges you based on the total load that the processors handled for that period. The more work you got out of the machine, the more you have to pay for the software. The assumption is that you used the software more, and therefore got more value out of it and required more support. (We're not just talking about the OS here. This is common for justa about *any* mainframe software.) I have discussed this a little on the mainframe mailing list. Some of them think it's unethical and greedy (as I do). The rest of them feel it's a fair way to do business, and it gives a "break" to the smaller businesses. Of course those that support it generally work for one of the ISVs (Indie Software Vendor). I hadn't realized until recently that HP was producing a direct competitor to the IBM z9 called Superdome. I guess it's been around for about 2 or 3 years. A big Korean corporation just bought two of them to replace 7000 mips worth of IBM mainframes. If that trend continues, maybe we'll see some of the big iron come down in price. Maybe. Wade Curry syntaxman -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
