Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
donb...@gmail.com (Don Williams) writes: > It does not actually matter whether their systems are "open" or not; just > different from IBM. Yes, the total cost is less expensive, because they are > smaller. Yes, the cost per transaction is higher. However, the cost per > transaction may be out weighted by other factors. Regardless, they'll work > hard on making it cheaper per transaction. Will they succeed? May be, maybe > not; but I think they have a good shot it. What I'm really saying is that > there is more than one way to get great results. IBM is not guaranteed to be > the market leader. IBM will have to fight to keep the lead and it will not > be an easy battle. Of course, IBM will fight for it. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#39 Why does IBM keep saying things like this: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#44 Why does IBM keep saying things like this: there are lots of industry standard benchmarks ... which require published results of transactions per time as well as total cost per transaction (and for DBMS, they have to demonstrate conformance with ACID properties). long ago and far away, there were mainframe results for these benchmarks ... but not for a long time. it isn't a vendor issue since ibm does do these benchmarks for the other platforms it sells. example http://www.tpc.org/ tpcc (both transaction performance and price/transaction) http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp a handle on part of mainframe total cost of ownership is IBM's mainframe revenue ... on the average. IBM's mainframe division earns total of $6.25 for every dollar revenue from processor ... aka a customer paying $28M for a 80-processor max configured z196 ... would avg. total payments to IBM of $175M (which is just the start for running mainframe datacenter). 80-processor max configured z196 is rated at 50BIPS ($175M/50 - $3.5M/BIPS). IBM's peak I/O benchmark for z196 is 2M IOPS using 104 FICON channels ... with 14 system assist processors. Peak SAPs is 2.2M SSCH/sec running all 14 at 100% busy, but recommendation is keep SAPs to 70% or less (1.5M SSCH/sec). IBM base list price for e5-2600 blade is $1815 and e5-2600 have ratings of 527BIPS or $3.44/BIPS (factor of million times less than z196). Recent FCS (FICON is heavyweight protocol layer on top of FCS that drastically cuts the native throughput) for e5-2600 claims over million IOPS (i.e. two such FCS would have higher throughput than 104 FICON) disclaimer: I worked with Jim Gray at IBM before he left for Tandem ... and his work to create tpc: http://www.tpc.org/information/who/gray.asp -- 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
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
It does not actually matter whether their systems are "open" or not; just different from IBM. Yes, the total cost is less expensive, because they are smaller. Yes, the cost per transaction is higher. However, the cost per transaction may be out weighted by other factors. Regardless, they'll work hard on making it cheaper per transaction. Will they succeed? May be, maybe not; but I think they have a good shot it. What I'm really saying is that there is more than one way to get great results. IBM is not guaranteed to be the market leader. IBM will have to fight to keep the lead and it will not be an easy battle. Of course, IBM will fight for it. I have a feeling that only time will tell. Don > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Timothy Sipples > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 1:35 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this: > > Don Williams writes: > >Younger/smaller businesses have the option to use the less expensive > open > >systems, because they don't need the more powerful IBM mainframe. > > Are they less expensive? Are they "open"? Do all of them not need a > zEnterprise? > > >Like IBM's mainframes, each generation of open systems grow more > powerful, > has > >more features, etc. So as those new businesses grow, they can expect their > >open systems to grow with them. > > Can they? They have zero workloads requiring significant vertical > scalability? > > >They may not need to go through the pain of migration to different > platform. > > Or they may. > > >These companies may have a significant cost advantage over the older and > >larger companies. > > Do they? There's no such thing as economies of scale? I can open a new bank > and enjoy lower costs per transaction than Citibank, JPMC, and Wells Fargo? > > It's very rare that smaller, startup companies have cost advantages over > larger incumbents. They may have other advantages related to quality, > distinctiveness, disruptiveness, and other factors, but lower unit costs > isn't typically one of their advantages. (Venture capitalists are well > aware of that characteristic.) > > >Based on http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html, there are around 28 > >million businesses in the US. About 3/4 of those businesses have no > payroll > >(e.g., self-employed persons) and only account for 3.4% of business > >receipts. This means that about 7 million businesses with a payroll > produce > >the US's GDP. > > Not quite. The public sector also contributes significantly to GDP -- > government produces many goods and services (the "P" in GDP) -- so you > have > to account for that. > > >The Fortune 500 only produces 15% of the GDP. > > Really? Well, it depends how you count. Take a look at this: > > http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/world-economies- > interactive/ > > The Fortune 500 actually produces the equivalent of 78.1% of U.S. GDP > (2011). That's because most of them are global multinational companies. > Which is a rather important detail in this story you're trying to tell. > > >Somewhere I read that on average Fortune 500 companies only remain on > the > >list for 75 years before being displaced. If that holds true, then in 75 > >years, half of the current Fortune 500 may be replaced by companies that > >are currently using open systems. > > It doesn't actually work that way. First of all, there's inflow, i.e. new > mainframe customers, every year. (Yes, z/OS too.) I'm expecting this pace > to increase, as a matter of fact, for a variety of structural market > reasons. Second, the typical reason why companies enter or exit the Fortune > 500 is because of corporate reorganizations: spinoffs, mergers, > acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, etc., etc. Take a look at AT&T, for > example, from 1983 to the present. AT&T alone has been responsible for a > healthy percentage of "churn" within the Fortune 500. (As it happens there > were several new mainframe customers born on January 1, 1984.) Third, > there > are many, many more indirect users of technology than direct ones, and that > trend is only increasing. For example, practically every small business > that launches needs a way to accept payments (credit cards, debit cards, > etc.) How do they do that? Usually with a mainframe. Not an on premises > mainframe, but sure enough their card terminal quite often talks to a > mainframe, directly or indirectly. > >
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Don Williams writes: >Younger/smaller businesses have the option to use the less expensive open >systems, because they don't need the more powerful IBM mainframe. Are they less expensive? Are they "open"? Do all of them not need a zEnterprise? >Like IBM's mainframes, each generation of open systems grow more powerful, has >more features, etc. So as those new businesses grow, they can expect their >open systems to grow with them. Can they? They have zero workloads requiring significant vertical scalability? >They may not need to go through the pain of migration to different platform. Or they may. >These companies may have a significant cost advantage over the older and >larger companies. Do they? There's no such thing as economies of scale? I can open a new bank and enjoy lower costs per transaction than Citibank, JPMC, and Wells Fargo? It's very rare that smaller, startup companies have cost advantages over larger incumbents. They may have other advantages related to quality, distinctiveness, disruptiveness, and other factors, but lower unit costs isn't typically one of their advantages. (Venture capitalists are well aware of that characteristic.) >Based on http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html, there are around 28 >million businesses in the US. About 3/4 of those businesses have no payroll >(e.g., self-employed persons) and only account for 3.4% of business >receipts. This means that about 7 million businesses with a payroll produce >the US's GDP. Not quite. The public sector also contributes significantly to GDP -- government produces many goods and services (the "P" in GDP) -- so you have to account for that. >The Fortune 500 only produces 15% of the GDP. Really? Well, it depends how you count. Take a look at this: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/world-economies-interactive/ The Fortune 500 actually produces the equivalent of 78.1% of U.S. GDP (2011). That's because most of them are global multinational companies. Which is a rather important detail in this story you're trying to tell. >Somewhere I read that on average Fortune 500 companies only remain on the >list for 75 years before being displaced. If that holds true, then in 75 >years, half of the current Fortune 500 may be replaced by companies that >are currently using open systems. It doesn't actually work that way. First of all, there's inflow, i.e. new mainframe customers, every year. (Yes, z/OS too.) I'm expecting this pace to increase, as a matter of fact, for a variety of structural market reasons. Second, the typical reason why companies enter or exit the Fortune 500 is because of corporate reorganizations: spinoffs, mergers, acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, etc., etc. Take a look at AT&T, for example, from 1983 to the present. AT&T alone has been responsible for a healthy percentage of "churn" within the Fortune 500. (As it happens there were several new mainframe customers born on January 1, 1984.) Third, there are many, many more indirect users of technology than direct ones, and that trend is only increasing. For example, practically every small business that launches needs a way to accept payments (credit cards, debit cards, etc.) How do they do that? Usually with a mainframe. Not an on premises mainframe, but sure enough their card terminal quite often talks to a mainframe, directly or indirectly. Timothy Sipples GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Younger/smaller businesses have the option to use the less expensive open systems, because they don't need the more powerful IBM mainframe. Like IBM's mainframes, each generation of open systems grow more powerful, has more features, etc. So as those new businesses grow, they can expect their open systems to grow with them. They may not need to go through the pain of migration to different platform. These companies may have a significant cost advantage over the older and larger companies. Based on http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html, there are around 28 million businesses in the US. About 3/4 of those businesses have no payroll (e.g., self-employed persons) and only account for 3.4% of business receipts. This means that about 7 million businesses with a payroll produce the US's GDP. The Fortune 500 only produces 15% of the GDP. Somewhere I read that on average Fortune 500 companies only remain on the list for 75 years before being displaced. If that holds true, then in 75 years, half of the current Fortune 500 may be replaced by companies that are currently using open systems. So perhaps only 50% of Fortune 500 may run on an IBM mainframe. Change seems to be happening more rapidly, so it may much less than 75 years to replace 50% of Fortune 500. Don > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Mike Schwab > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 12:58 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this: > > When somebody says the mainframe is dying, I like to say 95% of the > Fortune 500 run on a IBM mainframe. And their applications > absolutely, positively, cannot run on open systems, because they > require a much higher transaction rate than what open systems can run. > Some of the smaller mainframe shops have migrated off, but a lot of > them were extremely painful. > > -- > Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA > Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Betul, la! On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Robin Atwood wrote: >>If second definition actionable irritates you, please don't visit > Singapore. You would suffer >from the linguistic equivalent of anaphylactic > shock. :-) > > OK, la! > > -Robin > > > > Timothy Sipples > GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore) > E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email > to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Wayne V. Bickerdike -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Yeah lah, you so like that. Sometime talk cock man, make me blur like sotong... > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Robin Atwood > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:08 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: [IBM-MAIN] Why does IBM keep saying things like this: > > >If second definition actionable irritates you, please don't visit > Singapore. You would suffer >from the linguistic equivalent of anaphylactic > shock. :-) > > OK, la! > > -Robin > > > > Timothy Sipples > GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore) > E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to > lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to > lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
jwgli...@gmail.com (John Gilmore) writes: > I am prepared to concede that IBM evolves. Some of this evolution is > admirable, some not; but it is important to remember that not > corporations buy people write text. Some write English or another > language well, and some do not. Merriam-Webster takes the view that > usage is all, that current usage is a fortiori legitimate usage. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013h.html#39 Why does IBM keep saying things like this: in the 70s, IBM got a wide-spread reputation for FUD ... part of that is obfuscation and misdirecting the discussion away from principle issues (raising issues extraneous to subject at hand). this and several other references that search engines turn up http://changingminds.org/techniques/resisting/fud.htm reference is it really gaining hold with IBM marketing people in the 70s as countermeasure to Amdahl's clone processors. This discusses Amdahl's advanced computer project at IBM. IBM executives shut it down because they were afraid that it would advance computing too fast and they would loose control of the market (bottom of the article discusses features from ACS showing up more than 20yrs later in es/9000): http://people.cs.clemson.edu/~mark/acs_end.html Amdahl leaves and starts his clone processor company. IBM then starts the Future System project that was going to completely replace 370 (and completely different and incompatible with 370). During the FS period ... 370 efforts were being suspended and/or killed off. The lack of new 370 products during the FS period is credited with giving clone processors a market foothold. That also explains marketing having to finely tune its FUD skills because of the lack of competitive products. posts mentioning FS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresys When FS implodes (after spending billions of dollars w/o even being announced), there is mad rush to get products back into the 370 product pipelines. One of these is 303x ... 3031 is 158-3 with new covers, 3032 is 168-3 with new covers, 3033 is 168-3 logic remapped to 20% faster chips ... originally being developed for FS. In parallel with 3033, 370-xa and 3081 work starts. 3081 is leveraging some other poorly performing left over FS technology. This discusses how really badly 3081 compared to competition http://www.jfsowa.com/computer/memo125.htm It wasn't until you get to 3090 that you have really new technology ... and it isn't until es/9000 that you get back to advanced computing. During much of this time, about the only thing that marketing had to fall back on was developing and practicing its FUD skills. -- 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
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Phil Smith wrote: > ... although of course Humpty Dumpty wasn't correct, either: This charming story about that fictional egg character was told at least 28 times on IBM-MAIN... ;-D I wonder if I can fry him (he is already cracked!) and eat it with bacon, wieners, toast with honey? ;-) In fact, this morning I ate, cruel me!, one of his family members. ;-D ;-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
I'm very glad, in fact ecstatic, that IBM's compilers were not designed or written by Mr. H. Dumpty. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Phil Smith wrote: > Timothy Sipples wrote: > >I apologize up front for continuing a topic of dubious value in IBM-MAIN, > >but at least I didn't initiate it. :-) > > Neither did I, per se - I started the thread, but not the digression into > word use! And yeah, this equine is pretty deceased, but as the son of a > (himself deceased, seven years today) linguist, I must note that this is > the classic battle between the two schools of linguistics: descriptive and > prescriptive (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_descriptionand > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription). > > Particularly in the era of texts and Twitter, I'd submit that the strict > prescriptivists are bailing against the tide, although of course Humpty > Dumpty wasn't correct, either: > > '...And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' > `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. > Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't-till I tell you. > I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' > `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. > `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it > means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.' > `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many > different things.' > `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master-that's all.' > > Indeed, which is to be master? > > ...phsiii > > -- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System. If this had been an actual emergency, do you really think we'd stick around to tell you? Maranatha! <>< John McKown -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Timothy Sipples wrote: >I apologize up front for continuing a topic of dubious value in IBM-MAIN, >but at least I didn't initiate it. :-) Neither did I, per se - I started the thread, but not the digression into word use! And yeah, this equine is pretty deceased, but as the son of a (himself deceased, seven years today) linguist, I must note that this is the classic battle between the two schools of linguistics: descriptive and prescriptive (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription). Particularly in the era of texts and Twitter, I'd submit that the strict prescriptivists are bailing against the tide, although of course Humpty Dumpty wasn't correct, either: '...And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't-till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.' `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' `The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master-that's all.' Indeed, which is to be master? ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Enough has been said. Dragging this discussion through further iterations would change no one's mind. Mr. Sipples has his view and I mine. So be it. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
>If second definition actionable irritates you, please don't visit Singapore. You would suffer >from the linguistic equivalent of anaphylactic shock. :-) OK, la! -Robin Timothy Sipples GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
I apologize up front for continuing a topic of dubious value in IBM-MAIN,
but at least I didn't initiate it. :-)
Unlike French and its Académie française there's no single definitive,
official, recognized authority on the English language. The Oxford English
Dictionary is a reference -- an excellent one for (the minority) British
English in particular -- and Merriam-Webster is also a reference. There are
others. The English language is a set of conventions with varying and
evolving degrees of consensus.
There's consensus on the proper uses (plural) of the word actionable.
Merriam-Webster agrees with IBM. Dictionary.com (Random House) agrees with
IBM. Now here's the surprise: even Oxford agrees, even for British English:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/actionable?view=uk
Perhaps you are looking at or (wistfully?) remembering an older edition?
IBM is a U.S. headquartered company communicating in standard American
English according to multiple major English language references. IBM
invented many wonderful technologies, but as far as I know IBM neither
invented nor particularly encouraged the second definition of actionable.
Time would be better spent correcting clear violations of English language
conventions. IBM's usage of the word actionable isn't even close to a
violation. It's a newer usage of the word, but it's a consensus-correct
one. That's not to say time pursuing actual violations of consensus would
be *well* spent necessarily, but at least it would be better spent, in my
view.
As an entirely separate matter, is the second definition of actionable
so-called "management speak," which some people wish were, well,
actionable? Yes, probably. There's an irony here, though. The first
definition is useful mostly to lawyers ("lawyer speak"). I'm not highly
confident lawyers would win a popularity contest against managers. :-)
I favor treating the word data as the plural of datum, e.g. "the data are
clear." My use of the word data tends to follow that preference.
Nonetheless I recognize it's now only a personal preference, not a
deviation from consensus. Here's what Oxford says:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/data?view=uk
"In Latin, data is the plural of datum and, historically and in specialized
scientific fields, it is also treated as a plural in English, taking a
plural verb, as in the data were collected and classified. In modern
non-scientific use, however, it is generally not treated as a plural.
Instead, it is treated as a mass noun, similar to a word like information,
which takes a singular verb. Sentences such as data was collected over a
number of years are now widely accepted in standard English."
I have not met many people who speak or write the English of Shakespeare or
Chaucer except when performing or quoting Shakespeare or Chaucer. Nor have
I met many people who litter their modern prose with thys and thines. Broad
acceptance of the multi-page single sentence ended many years ago. The
English language evolves, and it has always been so from the language's
origins which were far, far from "upper class." There is little to lament
and much to celebrate in English's ongoing evolution.
If second definition actionable irritates you, please don't visit
Singapore. You would suffer from the linguistic equivalent of anaphylactic
shock. :-)
Timothy Sipples
GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore)
E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Not my insight, but that sentence itself seems actionable, and reminds me of some other winners I've seen from IBM over the decades: HASP sprayed bits at random, resulting in a S0C4 (seen in a RETAIN item 40 years ago, and the only example here that is humorous); The operator onlined the volume (also in RETAIN 40 years ago); First you must dimension the problem, then you can solution the problem. (in an "education" class 20 years ago). The last two examples example that any word (especially a noun) can be verbed. Bill Fairchild Franklin, TN - Original Message - From: "John Gilmore" To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Saturday, June 8, 2013 4:26:22 PM Subject: Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this: To anyone who cares for the English language "Get Actionable Insight with Security Intelligence for Mainframe Environments" is a good deal more offensive than a porous statistic. It sounds significant, bit it is pretentious nonsense. Properly, 'actionable' is a lawyer's term that means 'open to legal action, characterizing something that one can take legal action/bring suit against'. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
John Gilmore wrote: >The letters 'y' and 't' are adjacent on my keyboard (and many others). The >token 'buy' should have been 'but', less interesting but what I meant. I don't buy it, but ... ;-D No offense meant, I just like and learn what all of you wrote. ;-D All of the very best for you all in this thread. :-D Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
The letters 'y' and 't' are adjacent on my keyboard (and many others). The token 'buy' should have been 'but', less interesting but what I meant. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
On 6/10/2013 6:45 AM, John Gilmore wrote: [snip] I am prepared to concede that IBM evolves. Some of this evolution is admirable, some not; but it is important to remember that not corporations buy people write text. interesting construction above Some write English or another language well, and some do not Perhaps this is a commentary on his own writing. :-) [snip] -Steve Comstock The Trainer's Friend, Inc. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
In defense|defence of IBM's use of 'actionable' Timothy Sipples has used recognition by a Merriam-Webster dictionary of the sense 'capable of being acted upon'. The single example he cites is semantically contaminated by its law-enforcement/legal context, but for his purposes this is not perhaps a fatal defect. We must all choose our own authorities, and he has every right to choose his. I, however, prefer the OED because it includes quotations over long periods of time that permit me to judge the contexts in which a word has been used and its connotations in those contexts. There 'actionable' in his/IBM's sense has no respectable antecedents. I am prepared to concede that IBM evolves. Some of this evolution is admirable, some not; but it is important to remember that not corporations buy people write text. Some write English or another language well, and some do not. Merriam-Webster takes the view that usage is all, that current usage is a fortiori legitimate usage. My view is different. I can perhaps best summarize it by borrowing an example from E. B. White, who observed that while those who use the English-language verb 'to personalize' should be free to do so, they should not perhaps be equally free to teach English to others. Finally, of course, we are dealing here with matters of taste. In his post Mr Sipples wrote "True, definition #2 is not as old as definition #1." in conformity with much current usage, where the canons of standard English dictate, and I should have written, True, definition #2 is not so old as definition #1. He is certainly free to do this. Again, as he has repeatedly, he is free to use data as a singular noun. Equally, I am free to judge his use of such constructs, favorably or adversely. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
John Gilmore writes: >"Get Actionable Insight with Security Intelligence for Mainframe >Environments" >is a good deal more offensive than a porous statistic. >It sounds significant, bit it is pretentious nonsense. Properly, >'actionable' is a lawyer's term that means 'open to legal action, >characterizing something that one can take legal action/bring suit >against'. According to Merriam-Webster: Definition of ACTIONABLE 1 : subject to or affording ground for an action or suit at law 2 : capable of being acted on Examples of ACTIONABLE ... We've received actionable information that the men are hiding in these mountains. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/actionable Merriam-Webster does not presently consider definition #2 to be slang, colloquial, or in any other way nonstandard English. IBM is grammatically correct here. Moreover, couldn't IBM (also) mean definition #1? :-) True, definition #2 is not as old as definition #1. The English language evolves. Sorry about that. Thank goodness IBM evolves too. Timothy Sipples GMU VCT Architect Executive (Based in Singapore) E-Mail: sipp...@sg.ibm.com -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
When somebody says the mainframe is dying, I like to say 95% of the Fortune 500 run on a IBM mainframe. And their applications absolutely, positively, cannot run on open systems, because they require a much higher transaction rate than what open systems can run. Some of the smaller mainframe shops have migrated off, but a lot of them were extremely painful. -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Sancho is on holiday, and I felt free to do so. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
John Gilmore wrote: >To anyone who cares for the English language >"Get Actionable Insight with Security Intelligence for Mainframe Environments" >is a good deal more offensive than a porous statistic. >It sounds significant, bit it is pretentious nonsense. Properly, actionable' >is a lawyer's term that means 'open to legal action, characterizing something >that one can take legal action/bring suit against'. Yeah, I had that thought, but decided not to tilt at that particular windmill today! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
To anyone who cares for the English language "Get Actionable Insight with Security Intelligence for Mainframe Environments" is a good deal more offensive than a porous statistic. It sounds significant, bit it is pretentious nonsense. Properly, 'actionable' is a lawyer's term that means 'open to legal action, characterizing something that one can take legal action/bring suit against'. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Charles Mills wrote: >Where did you see that quote? >I used to teach an (in-house) Intro to Mainframes class. I used that >statistic in the class. I tried to track down something specific (data? >business data? critical business data?) and authoritative (IBM, Gartner, >etc.). I did not succeed. IBM slides from a webinar this past week, "Get Actionable Insight with Security Intelligence for Mainframe Environments". >Also, the quote I have usually seen is "seventy percent." Are mainframes >losing ground? Or someone is getting slightly more conservative. To the other commenters: Sure, I expect IBM thinks/means "business data", FSVO the term. But they need to be more careful about saying that - all it would need is the word "business" in front of "data" to change it from a ridiculous to a maybe-plausible claim, but I've seen it *repeatedly* without that qualifier. IBM shouldn't be offering the know-nothings and anti-IBM contingent slow pitches like this-make 'em work for their hits. And yes, Big Data skews things badly; making it "structured business data" would cure that, although of course at some point, things become *so* heavily qualified that they're again meaningless. (I can't help but think of the statistics they always quote on football games: "You know, Jim, that's the most running yards ever in the third quarter by a left-handed rookie fullback in a Thursday night game on artificial turf while playing at home"-by the time they get to the end of the sentence, I've lost interest!) ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Where did you see that quote? I used to teach an (in-house) Intro to Mainframes class. I used that statistic in the class. I tried to track down something specific (data? business data? critical business data?) and authoritative (IBM, Gartner, etc.). I did not succeed. Also, the quote I have usually seen is "seventy percent." Are mainframes losing ground? Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Phil Smith Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:47 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Why does IBM keep saying things like this: 65% of the world's data resides on the mainframe. Surely YouTube alone stores more data than resides "on" all the mainframes in the world?! Well, let's see: http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html says that "72 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute". A minute of video is about 1MB. So 72*60*1440*100 = 6,220,800,000,000 So 6TB/day. In a year: 2,270,592,000,000,000 So 2 petabytes/year. And that's just YouTube-no Facebook, no Pinterest, no photo storage sites. I'm as big a fan of System z as anyone, but statements like this make it look like IBM can't do basic math. Not good. And I see it again, and again, and again... ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
edja...@phoenixsoftware.com (Ed Jaffe) writes: > In every presentation I've seen where a statistic like this was > presented, it was always qualified as "business data". In that > context, it implied data bases of core customer, account, transaction, > billing, and inventory data (et al) maintained by the world's largest > corporations for their applications. I do not think the presenters > meant to include things like, for example, the millions of copies of > Microsoft Office running on business PCs as "business data". IBM's claims used to be not just mainframe but also IMS. trivial issue is that the "big data" movement has turned an enormous amount of stuff into "business data" (far in excess of traditional legacy business data). in some cases the mainframe releated costs are millions times that of technology being used for "big data" ... as a result, non-mainframe "big data" processing much easier to show positive ROI. -- 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
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
Some such qualification is clearly necessary. The intent of such statements is to make it clear that the aggregate size of files maintained for and processed on mainframes is [still] very large in relation to those maintained in other, non-mainframe formats for processing elsewhere. Any such announced percentage P is of course open to attack on the grounds that something has been improperly included in or excluded from the numerator or denominator used to calculate it. The value of P can only be known very approximately, but this is usually the case with such numbers: McDonalds may no longer know at all exactly just how many hamburgers it has sold, and taking refuge in "billions amd billions sold" enables it both to avoid delusive exactitude and to save on signage-updating costs. In this particular case I am all but certain that IBM has an MBA-wrought argument for P = 85 that has passed muster with its lawyers as non-specious, defensible if attacked. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
On 6/8/2013 8:46 AM, Phil Smith wrote: 65% of the world's data resides on the mainframe. In every presentation I've seen where a statistic like this was presented, it was always qualified as "business data". In that context, it implied data bases of core customer, account, transaction, billing, and inventory data (et al) maintained by the world's largest corporations for their applications. I do not think the presenters meant to include things like, for example, the millions of copies of Microsoft Office running on business PCs as "business data". -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Why does IBM keep saying things like this:
On 6/8/2013 11:47 AM, Phil Smith wrote: 65% of the world's data resides on the mainframe. Surely YouTube alone stores more data than resides "on" all the mainframes in the world?! Well, let's see: http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html says that "72 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute". A minute of video is about 1MB. So 72*60*1440*100 = 6,220,800,000,000 So 6TB/day. In a year: 2,270,592,000,000,000 So 2 petabytes/year. And that's just YouTube-no Facebook, no Pinterest, no photo storage sites. I'm as big a fan of System z as anyone, but statements like this make it look like IBM can't do basic math. Not good. And I see it again, and again, and again... ...phsiii -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN I doubt IBM considers YouTube videos to be "data". I'm sure if you added up the DVR's on the planet, you'd get more than IBM. Regards, Tom Conley -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
