5 ms·

I used to work with an old IBMer who used to say "it's no accident that IBM nearly collapsed at the same time as the Soviet Union did". Lou Gerstner famously re

I used to work with an old IBMer who used to say "it's no accident that IBM nearly collapsed at the same time as the Soviet Union did". Lou Gerstner famously rescued IBM from oblivion by turning it into a consultancy led company, and moving the focus away from mainframes. This is just a case of IBM snaffling up the latest cool thing so they can sell consulting services.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
What is the connection to the Soviet Union? Were they a large IBM customer?
- prodmerc 11y ago
  No, but the people who were afraid of them were :-)
- lemevi 11y ago
  Cold War funds for department of defense and other federal departments dried up.
- osullivj 11y ago
  Both IBM and USSR were bloated, inefficient, slow moving, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations. Gorbachev failed to save his org, despite heroic efforts. Gerstner did rescue IBM. Maybe if Gorby had saved the USSR Putin would still be working for the KGB in Berlin...
draw_down 11y ago
Which is fine, people who build things need an exit after all.
throwawayaway 11y ago
> the Russian decision in the late sixties to develop as their next national computer series a bit-compatible copy of the IBM 360 —the greatest American victory in the cold war!—. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD05xx/EWD506.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD05xx/E... Your quip reminded me of the above quote from Dijkstra!
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Despite my other comment, I do regularly post that one. Hilarious. Anyone that saw better architectures (eg Burroughs) knows that he's probably right that cloning 360 wasted a prime opportunity to kick IBM's ass with technically superior, state-funded product. There's a chance they'll make a come-back in near future, though.
aus_ 11y ago
> ...moving the focus away from mainframes. Actually, System z (mainframes) still accounts for a quarter of IBM's revenue and about half of its profits. [1] At least, that was the case in 2012. I suspect that hasn't changed much with IBM's recent announcement of the LinuxONE. In fact, IBM contributed significant effort get Node.js (and thereby V8) ported to s390x. [2] [1]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainframes http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainf... [2]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainframes http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainf...
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  It's too painful for people to check their facts before declaring mainframes dead or something IBM is leaving. As you said, they're incredibly profitable. Same thing happened with OpenVMS, which turned out much profit for HP despite little investment. Next they'll be telling us Group Bull, Unisys, and Fujitsu are similarly scraping by in the mainframe business. And NonStop and IBM i are on verge of cancellation. And blah blah blah. I'm sure we'll be hearing the same crap in a decade while said crap is posted via a service that imtegrates with a COBOL app on a mainframe. ;)
johnward 11y ago
Mainframes still bring in a lot of money. I actually think of IBM as being led by finance people.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

What is the connection to the Soviet Union? Were they a large IBM customer?

prodmerc 11y ago
No, but the people who were afraid of them were :-)
lemevi 11y ago
Cold War funds for department of defense and other federal departments dried up.
osullivj 11y ago
Both IBM and USSR were bloated, inefficient, slow moving, hierarchical, bureaucratic organisations. Gorbachev failed to save his org, despite heroic efforts. Gerstner did rescue IBM. Maybe if Gorby had saved the USSR Putin would still be working for the KGB in Berlin...

draw_down 11y ago

Which is fine, people who build things need an exit after all.

throwawayaway 11y ago

> the Russian decision in the late sixties to develop as their next national computer series a bit-compatible copy of the IBM 360 —the greatest American victory in the cold war!—. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD05xx/EWD506.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD05xx/E... Your quip reminded me of the above quote from Dijkstra!

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Despite my other comment, I do regularly post that one. Hilarious. Anyone that saw better architectures (eg Burroughs) knows that he's probably right that cloning 360 wasted a prime opportunity to kick IBM's ass with technically superior, state-funded product. There's a chance they'll make a come-back in near future, though.

aus_ 11y ago

> ...moving the focus away from mainframes. Actually, System z (mainframes) still accounts for a quarter of IBM's revenue and about half of its profits. [1] At least, that was the case in 2012. I suspect that hasn't changed much with IBM's recent announcement of the LinuxONE. In fact, IBM contributed significant effort get Node.js (and thereby V8) ported to s390x. [2] [1]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainframes http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainf... [2]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainframes http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainf...

nickpsecurity 11y ago
It's too painful for people to check their facts before declaring mainframes dead or something IBM is leaving. As you said, they're incredibly profitable. Same thing happened with OpenVMS, which turned out much profit for HP despite little investment. Next they'll be telling us Group Bull, Unisys, and Fujitsu are similarly scraping by in the mainframe business. And NonStop and IBM i are on verge of cancellation. And blah blah blah. I'm sure we'll be hearing the same crap in a decade while said crap is posted via a service that imtegrates with a COBOL app on a mainframe. ;)

johnward 11y ago

Mainframes still bring in a lot of money. I actually think of IBM as being led by finance people.