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 doe
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 mainfram
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 syste
@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
> requi
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
>
> --
U
> 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
riam-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
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 fa
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. :-)
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
dec
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 / a
>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 V
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 excelle
riginal 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 Envir
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
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 / archiv
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 we
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
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,
>charac
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 shop
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
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 te
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
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.
I
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 say
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
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 ann
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, billin
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 You
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
