paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes: > Which is that "lowest cost platform"? What was IBM's business rationale for > encouraging that migration?
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013n.html#78 wtf ? - was Catalog system for Unix et al at very high executive level ... POSIX just appears to make porting easy .... including the port of non-mainframe applications to mainframe ... helping with the issue with moving distributed computing applications to the mainframe. that major market motivation for POSIX was to make it easy to frequently migrate to whatever the current best price/performance platform that happen to be at the moment (masking proprietary hardware and operating system features ... that would lock in customers). note in this time-frame we had come up with 3-tier architecture and taking lots of arrows in the back from the communication group. we had mainframes at top tier ... but (of course) none of the mainframe hardware attachments were from the communication group. part of 3-tier and the non-ibm mainframe interfaces ... also included 10mbit ethernet ... and communication group, SAA orgination and the token-ring people were generating all sorts of FUD. my wife had written 3-tier into response to large gov. RFI that also happened to have the very highest security requirements. We were also doing 3-tier customer executive presentations (that the communication group was trying to shutdown and/or at least discredit). lots of past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#3tier old posts with pieces of 1988 3-tier pitch http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#16 middle layer http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#17 middle layer http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#202 Middleware - where did that come from http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002q.html#40 ibm time machine a trivial example of the communication orientation ... was the 16mbit t/r microchannel adapter card. it had been shown that aggregate 10mbit ethernet LAN throughput was higher than 16mbit t/r as well as having lower latency. however, the 16mbit microchannel t/r adapter also had very low per card throughput ... design was 300+ stations doing terminal emulation all sharing common bandwidth. the workstation group had done their own 4mbit t/r card for the PC/RT (PC/AT 16bit bus). for the rs/6000 with microchannel, the group was told they couldn't do any of their own cards (communication group at it again). the problem was that the per card throughput of the standard 16mbit t/r card was (also) less than the pc/rt 4mbit t/r card ... aka a pc/rt 4mbit t/r server had higher server throughput than rs/6000 server with 16mbit t/r microchannel card. recent posts mentioning corporate FUD http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#76 IBM Spent A Million Dollars Renovating And Staffing Its Former CEO's Office http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#4 IBM commitment to academia http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#83 Metcalfe's Law: How Ethernet Beat IBM and Changed the World http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013j.html#23 The cloud is killing traditional hardware and software http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#7 Voyager 1 just left the solar system using less computing powerthan your iP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#18 Voyager 1 just left the solar system using less computing powerthan your iP http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013m.html#35 Why is the mainframe so expensive? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013n.html#30 SNA vs TCP/IP -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
