Interesting conversion article.
>http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/erp/story/0,10801,103583,00.html
Ron Greve
SDSU
Admin aAdmin and Research Computing
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / arch
In a message dated 8/3/2005 2:01:13 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
companies involved. As in most cases these are veiled self-promotion trying
to give impressions that, they hope, will lead others down the same road
>>
We had one about 10yrs ago, where we converte
10 to one the article is based on a PR/news release from one of the
companies involved. As in most cases these are veiled self-promotion trying
to give impressions that, they hope, will lead others down the same road
Robert Galambos
Compuware Senior Technical Specialist
IBM Certified Soluti
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Justice
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:01 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another, another one bites the dust.
>
>
> 51 mips, yea okay
51 mips, yea okay. and that not even running at full capacity...
exactly how many people did they need to maintain a "51 mips" mainframe
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL P
Though reading the article, you can't blame them...
For those that keep track of these things...
http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=articl
e&sid=3386
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archi
Chris, relative to another of your posts, I just received
this today (1 August) but the send date is listed as
11 July!
Kind regards,
-Steve Comstock
Craddock, Chris wrote:
And another 100 to replace them for newer ones as new
technology comes out.
Wow, they must be in the money, custome
...
I trust my zSeries to do things that the smaller boxes can't do.
...
I sort of won an argument with our provider.
They just added one more engine to our production z/box.
Originally, they wanted to POR/IPL to do it.
I was the only one against it.
Finally, when they realised there wasn't a time
On Aug 1, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Craddock, Chris wrote:
Ok, replying to my own post, but this is just weird...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Craddock, Chris
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:17 AM
^^^
One Bites the Dust
> And another 100 to replace them for newer ones as new
> technology comes out.
> Wow, they must be in the money, customers money that is.
> And have another 50 in reserve to replace they ones going
> down every 5 minutes.
Just ain't so folks... t
. . . and it shall continue to do so; what's more, it is getting more complex
all the time. At most shops that have mainframes, it is only one component --
and an increasingly minor one -- in the overall enterprise IT picture. I trust
my zSeries to do things that the smaller boxes can't do, b
Ok, replying to my own post, but this is just weird...
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Craddock, Chris
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:17 AM
^^
this post just arrived, a mere 3 weeks late
> And another 100 to replace them for newer ones as new
> technology comes out.
> Wow, they must be in the money, customers money that is.
> And have another 50 in reserve to replace they ones going
> down every 5 minutes.
Just ain't so folks... take a long hard look at the real numbe
On 8 Jul 2005 05:20:23 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
>For those that keep score or have an interest...
>
>http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050707/sfth081.html?.v=17
>
Given the way many places actually use their mainframes, a move to
operating system du jour may not decrease reliability.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas David Rivers
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 2:33 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
>
> John,
>
McKown, John wrote:
I don't really know what "expensive" means either. The IBM C compiler
($1,200/month?) got cancelled due to it being "too expensive".
John,
We can offer you a much cheaper alternative! Also - it runs on your
workstation, integrates into Microsoft's Developer Studio or
Timothy Sipples wrote:
== A very wise man named David Andrews writes:
Sorry, that was me. -Steve Comstock
Not sure how wise I am, but that was
my opinion, not David's.
In this business, especially, you can never stop learning
and never stop pushing out of your comfort level. But you
know this
== A very wise man named David Andrews writes:
>In this business, especially, you can never stop learning
>and never stop pushing out of your comfort level. But you
>know this. Everyone on this list knows this. But we don't
>always do what has to get done. Sometimes we luck out,
>sometimes we don't
On Jul 14, 2005, at 2:31 PM, McKown, John wrote:
I tried looking at WSED, but I cannot figure out how to get a simple
price. I don't have the authority to contact a sales person, myself.
Plus, I don't like talking to sales people. They are almost as bad as
lawyers for "weasel words" (sorry, but t
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:31:21 -0500, McKown, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I don't really know what "expensive" means either. The IBM C compiler
>($1,200/month?) got cancelled due to it being "too expensive".
>
>I tried looking at WSED, but I cannot figure out how to get a simple
>price. I don'
David Andrews wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 07:56 -0500, Timothy Sipples wrote:
I'm 37
I wonder how your post would have been worded if you'd instead written:
"I'm 52". I'll bet it wouldn't have contained quite so much of this:
...
(b) Be mobile.
...
If your employer will not [...] see (b
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Seubert
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:57 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
>
>
> Putting on my
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Ron and Jenny Hawkins
>
> [ snip ]
>
> One other thing springs to mind about Unix sites. Unlike many
> MVS sites, I do not often see a huge amount of server power
> set aside for an army of programmers developing an
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:05:39 -0500, McKown, John
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I agree that developing COBOL on the zSeries cost more in terms of man
>power than, say, VB. Why? Because VB comes with a lot of packaged
>subroutines for many functions that the COBOL people end up programming
>themselv
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron and Jenny Hawkins
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:07 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
>
> Bill,
>
On 14-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Seubert) wrote:
> We need to be knowledgeable of the cost-of-ownership factors (every single
> study I've seen identifies personnel costs as the bulk of the TCO equation,
> with distributed management costs far exceeding that of the mainframe. HW
> is a nit
eries.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of William Ball
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 11:00 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> Ron,
>
> Obvi
These guys have a competitor who is larger than the latter and about to be
larger than the former who processes 300-400 million credit accounts on 17
z-footprints 15 plexes (2 more on the way) more than 50 lpars. Dinosaurs
rule.
The challenges include:
--Cobol programmers. Like the ones who
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:12:38 -0400, David Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You've fairly called some of us curmudgeons. As the joke goes: I
>resemble that remark. But be aware of the graying of the sysprog and
>the trap that many of us find ourselves in.
I think Tim's point is that a curmudg
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 07:56 -0500, Timothy Sipples wrote:
> I'm 37
I wonder how your post would have been worded if you'd instead written:
"I'm 52". I'll bet it wouldn't have contained quite so much of this:
> ...
> (b) Be mobile.
> ...
> If your employer will not [...] see (b).
> ...
> See (b)
Ron,
Obviously, I'm not going to change your mind or you mine.
I'm guessing you don't believe the Xephon reports, that's up to you. My
past and present observations from working in this business show a 5+ to 1
ratio and it's growing. The 8 TB just rolled in the door so it is doing
little of n
On 13-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If they are indeed doing a better job than what a mainframe can do
> regarding the number of support staff, disaster recovery, ease of
> maintenance and debuggability, then I would indeed concede the point. Have
> you investigated these areas? Or are they
Some semi-random points:
1. Most, I'm sure, are familiar with Arcati's "Dynosaur Myth" study (of
total costs per user). If not, print out a few copies and hand them to
executives. Note that their 2005 update (in their 2005 Mainframe Yearbook
-- print out that page, too) projects an even bigg
Bill,
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of William Ball
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 6:24 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> You're jumping t
You're jumping to the conclusion that squatty boxes are -cheaper- than a
mainframe, while in fact they are -not-overall. They may initially
cost less than a mainframe but by the time you add a 5+ to 1 people cost
per application to the squatty end, they are actually more expensive.
And the
t; Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> FTPing report files that must put a hurtin on the Network and that data
> is it really secure on that open systems
>
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive
>
> FTPing report files that must put a hurtin on the Network and
> that data is it really secure on that open systems
>
Er... not since the days of dial-up. Report files are how big?
Ethernet supports at least 100 Megabits/sec. That's conservatively
several MiB/Sec sustained data rate and you
Craddock, Chris wrote:
Metagroup says, High software prices of Z/OS and dependent utility
software will slow zSeries annual growth.
Oh, so it WILL slow growth eh? When? Any day soon?
What a band of temporarly challenged genii. High software prices
have been retarding growth for decades
> Metagroup says, High software prices of Z/OS and dependent utility
> software will slow zSeries annual growth.
Oh, so it WILL slow growth eh? When? Any day soon?
What a band of temporarly challenged genii. High software prices
have been retarding growth for decades. Customers have been fleeced
: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
If they are indeed doing a better job than what a mainframe can do
regarding the number of support staff, disaster recovery, ease of
maintenance and debuggability, then I would indeed concede the point. Have
you investigated these areas? Or are they just
m: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robin Murray
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 4:29 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> If they are indeed doing a better job than what a mainframe can do
&
...
Metagroup says, High software prices of Z/OS and dependent utility
software will slow zSeries annual growth
...
Where have you (and they) been?
Everything new is old again.
There have been people (myself included) trumpetting this since IBM
introduced tier-based pricing in 1984-1985.
Conversi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Hal Merritt
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 4:30 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> Looked at that solution a few years ago. Of course, the root problem is
> SAS trying to put itself out of business.
> [snip]
> My original point was you can't compare a single-purpose
> box's reliability with that of a mainframe and get a fair
> comparison.
You can compare anything you like to anything else. Fairness
is not (at least last I looked) considered to be a qualifier
in choosing one solution over ano
both sides of the fence.
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robin Murray
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 4:23 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> .
PM
Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
Hands up all of you that have successfully migrated your SAS/MXG
applications from MVS to Windows and saved money.
Hands
frame Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ron and Jenny Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 3:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
Hands up all of you that have successfully migrated your SAS/MXG
applications from MVS to Windows and saved
frame Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ron and Jenny Hawkins
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 3:13 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
Hands up all of you that have successfully migrated your SAS/MXG
applications from MVS to Windows and saved
cc:
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> > The day that it becomes commonplace for, say, three unix servers
> > to be able to support the entire IT production environment
> > for a large company, and do so reliably, I'll concede the point
wkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
07/13/2005 05:13 PM
Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
Hands up all of you that have successful
be a better and
cheaper way to go in almost all cases.
Ron
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Welch, Mp P [ITS]
> Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 3:48 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Ano
[snip]
Sure its a valid comparison. The only thing a user cares about
is the result. They might have a bit of tourist curiosity, but
as long as they get their job done on time, they generally don't
care HOW it gets done. So if it takes two or more redundant (but
very cheap) boxes to do the job of
>
> > The day that it becomes commonplace for, say, three unix servers
> > to be able to support the entire IT production environment
> > for a large company, and do so reliably, I'll concede the point.
>
Hmm, how about most of the largest Telcos in Asia, the largest airlines in
Asia, and a 270T
Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Craddock, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
> [snip]
> Reliability is only one part of the equation.
&
> [snip]
> Reliability is only one part of the equation.
> [snip]
> Good points, however I was responding to the idea that
> running a simple app on a single box somehow proves that
> the server boxes are now on par with mainframe reliablility,
> and that's not a logical comparison.
Sure its a va
Chris Craddock writes:
We as a community have to get over the idea that the mainframe is the only,
or even the best way of delivering high availability. There are lots of
other systems that do it quite mundanely every day. Mainframes have some
wonderful features and still have some technica
> IBM didn't invent RAS systems to keep
> themselves amused, they did so because their customers demanded it, and
> were willing to pay for it. Both IBM and their customers had to invest
> heavily in this or they'd be out of business.
I really have to say that these days the almighty dollar seems
[snip]
Reliability is only one part of the equation.
[snip]
Good points, however I was responding to the idea that running a simple
app on a single box somehow proves that the server boxes are now on par
with mainframe reliablility, and that's not a logical comparison.
[snip]
> A mainframe is a
On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:45 -0300, Robin Murray wrote:
> It's not that difficult to create a reliable box when it's only running
> one or two static applications. Under those conditions it *better* be
> reliable. otherwise it's a mere toy. A mainframe is a different beast,
> offering many, many
> It's not that difficult to create a reliable box when it's
> only running one or two static applications. Under those
> conditions it *better* be reliable. otherwise it's a mere toy.
Reliability is only one part of the equation. It is almost
trivial to demonstrate that you can build high avail
On 12-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clark Morris) wrote:
> Guess what? While we may not like it, Sun, HP etc. are reliable
> enough for most things.
What does "reliable" mean for most people?It means they can do their job
with results they can rely on.
> There are people in the Unix/Linux w
than your
z-boxes!!!
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of William Ball
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 July 2005 6:47 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
> You
07/13/2005 09:51 AM
Please respond to IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 20:33 -0300, Clark Morris wrote:
> Guess what? While we may not like it, Sun, HP etc. a
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fenner, Jim
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:54 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
>
>
>
> The avera
power outages, equipment moves, OS
updates, and, sad to say, bugs in our own software.
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of R.S.
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the
David Andrews wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 20:33 -0300, Clark Morris wrote:
Guess what? While we may not like it, Sun, HP etc. are reliable
enough for most things. There are people in the Unix/Linux world who
brag about the number of months between reboots.
A point well worth repeating.
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 20:33 -0300, Clark Morris wrote:
> Guess what? While we may not like it, Sun, HP etc. are reliable
> enough for most things. There are people in the Unix/Linux world who
> brag about the number of months between reboots.
A point well worth repeating. A few years ago I had
The average time for D/R recoverability on a squatty box is measured in
daysnot hours.
For privacy's sake please do NOT read the anal-retentive message
appended automatically by our email system to this message :-)
I concur. At our installation , the SAP system which handles a lot of
the
You're making a leap there that -I'm- certainly not ready to make. Speed
isn't everything, never has been.
If you want to play games or have application that you don't really care
about when it gets done and a lot of times in accurate results and only
has 1 or 2 users, you -might- be able to l
...
In terms of raw compute power,
excluding I-O what is the ratio between 1 high end Sun engine, 1
PowerPC chip, 1 high end Intel chip (3.4 ghz or something like these
days and 1 Z990 engine?
...
Depending on who you talk to a z/990 is roughly equivalent to 2.5-3 Ghz.
It's getting to the point t
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:14 PM
>To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
>Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
>And have another 50 in reserve to replace they ones going down every 5
>minutes.
>
>Bill
>
>Mainframe -
>
>An obsolet
- Another One Bites the Dust
And have another 50 in reserve to replace they ones going down every 5
minutes.
Bill
Mainframe -
An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete companies, serving
billions of obsolete customers, and making huge obsolete profits, for
their obsolete
And have another 50 in reserve to replace they ones going down every 5
minutes.
Bill
Mainframe -
An obsolete device still used by thousands of obsolete companies, serving
billions of obsolete customers, and making huge obsolete profits, for
their obsolete shareholders. And this year's run t
If I were the a person with -my- money in that bank, my first stop would
be closing the account out. The money would be safer under a mattress
somewhere.
About the first time some hacker decides to transfer a bundle of money
into a Swiss account I can see at least 2 things that are going to hap
Sure... Throw 50 boxes at it...
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Desi de la Garza
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
But can the sun thing handle 6K
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Desi de la Garza
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 12:14 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
>
>
> But can the su
But can the sun thing handle 6K users?
-Original Message-
From: Bob Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
The article doesn't identify which "mainframe" the bank
Howard is correct in IMHO but hardware can also be bad news.
At my site we run z/OS on a small 115-MIP z800 box ("legacy" COBOL, CICS, etc).
Our Oracle 9i runs (hard) on a 2-box SUN cluster. The usual
pass data back and forth stuff with "Webbing" on the Windoze side
for good measure. Oh what t
On 8-Jul-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Shannon) wrote:
> The article doesn't identify which "mainframe" the bank converted from.
> It's hard to imagine why any company would convert to Sun nowadays.
I didn't see the message you're referring to so I haven't seen the article.
But fewer and fewer s
ear's run twice fast as last
year's. -Phil Payne-
Ed Finnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
07/08/2005 09:35 AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: Another - Another One Bites the Dust
In a message dated 7/8/2005 7:29:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's hard to imagine why any company would convert to Sun nowadays
>>
Deep discounts, bigger staff, the world of empires
--
Fo
Yeah But what can one do when the IT industry is Managed By Magazine?
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Dave Cartwright
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 8:32 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Another - Another One Bites
May have been a bad move;
http://www.itsecurity.com/security.htm?
s=5378&sid=96a9001ffa68496bc8a3351f8e0cb085
(sorry if it wraps)
DC
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECT
The article doesn't identify which "mainframe" the bank converted from.
It's hard to imagine why any company would convert to Sun nowadays.
Bob Shannon
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send emai
For those that keep score or have an interest...
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050707/sfth081.html?.v=17
Happy Weekend.
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the me
85 matches
Mail list logo
