4 ms·

I find the wording in this blog entry interesting - in particular "most in need of an upgrade". In my opinion, hardware that can be repaired and software that

I find the wording in this blog entry interesting - in particular "most in need of an upgrade". In my opinion, hardware that can be repaired and software that has been running in production for years is not in need of an upgrade. The need to refresh software or hardware exists purely to keep vendors in business and even just to keep some I.T. departments busy and their C.V.'s up to date. Provided a system is working reliably and is not dependent on changing external requirements there is no need to upgrade. The risk to a business or entity from the constant upgrade cycle is far greater than keeping something existing and tested running.

soohyung 11y ago
That's true except when said system needs to be repaired and there is no one left who knows how to work with any systems that old. In that case it can be painful finding someone knowledgeable enough to work with a system that old.
- viraptor 11y ago
  My rule of the thumb would be - if you can't buy a drop-in replacement and get it delivered in a week, it's outdated. It doesn't even have to fail in a software/hardware specific way. If your floor collapses or is flooded, and you're using old mainframe with code written in Natural or similar, what's your DR story? Which actually makes me curious - does anyone know what the DR plans look like for companies using 70's mainframes? Let's say a critical S/370 in company basement? (and yes, I'm aware that new z series should virtualise that just fine, but in practice... if you lose a mainframe, what do you even do?)
  - eru 11y ago
    I guess for anything IBM related, you can still throw many at IBM. With other companies, you might be out of luck.
  - Piskvorrr 11y ago
    Many DR plans are actually 1. pray that nothing bad happens, 2. else unbounded panic.
crispyambulance 11y ago
Some organizations are resistant to change and that's OK, but when systems are maintained to the point that they become a historical curiosity-- that's going a bit too far. Aside from comically high maintenance costs (which only the government and perhaps banks can afford to pay), such organizations also need to _hire_, _train_ and _retain_ staff that can actually do their jobs on these things. It simply isn't feasible to keep let alone recruit strong talent in an environment where legacy goes beyond a certain level. Yeah, good employees _ARE_ going to be concerned about their C.V.'s and that is understandable. An excessive "upgrade cycle" may, in some cases be risky, but a vastly more common problem is orgs that don't change/adapt/upgrade fast enough. That has risks and costs as well.

soohyung 11y ago

That's true except when said system needs to be repaired and there is no one left who knows how to work with any systems that old. In that case it can be painful finding someone knowledgeable enough to work with a system that old.

viraptor 11y ago
My rule of the thumb would be - if you can't buy a drop-in replacement and get it delivered in a week, it's outdated. It doesn't even have to fail in a software/hardware specific way. If your floor collapses or is flooded, and you're using old mainframe with code written in Natural or similar, what's your DR story? Which actually makes me curious - does anyone know what the DR plans look like for companies using 70's mainframes? Let's say a critical S/370 in company basement? (and yes, I'm aware that new z series should virtualise that just fine, but in practice... if you lose a mainframe, what do you even do?)
- eru 11y ago
  I guess for anything IBM related, you can still throw many at IBM. With other companies, you might be out of luck.
- Piskvorrr 11y ago
  Many DR plans are actually 1. pray that nothing bad happens, 2. else unbounded panic.

crispyambulance 11y ago

Some organizations are resistant to change and that's OK, but when systems are maintained to the point that they become a historical curiosity-- that's going a bit too far. Aside from comically high maintenance costs (which only the government and perhaps banks can afford to pay), such organizations also need to _hire_, _train_ and _retain_ staff that can actually do their jobs on these things. It simply isn't feasible to keep let alone recruit strong talent in an environment where legacy goes beyond a certain level. Yeah, good employees _ARE_ going to be concerned about their C.V.'s and that is understandable. An excessive "upgrade cycle" may, in some cases be risky, but a vastly more common problem is orgs that don't change/adapt/upgrade fast enough. That has risks and costs as well.