> I think that we, and IBM, have taken to resting on our laurels, and we all > refuse to notice that these cheap, unreliable toys are catching up to the > curve. Most of our "excuses" work today still, but in another year or two, I'm > not so sure. And I'm finding it hard right now to stand in front of a group and > tell them that they're better off serving web pages on a million dollar server, > when those same pages can be served by a $299 machine. It takes a whole lot of > virtual Linux images to reach the TOC of a $299 machine.
If you are allowing $299 to be the discussion point, the, yes, your laurels have been smashed flat, indeed! ;-) $299 is NOT the total cost of ownership (TCO) of the machine. Utilities, people, network infrastructure, real estate, etc. all are part of TOC, too. (Watch those people costs, btw....) Focusing on the technology will lead you down the proverbial garden path. Focus on the *business*. When you look at total I/T spending as part of your business, assuming you know where them money goes (big assumption!), then it becomes more obvious when mainframes should at least be considered. The technology is just a way to affect the TCO. But as long a the conversation is limited to *acquisition price* instead of *cost of ownership*, then no meaningful discussion of the role of mainframes can be had. Alan Altmark Sr. Software Engineer IBM z/VM Development
