3 ms·
We have most platforms from IBM, z (Mainframe), iSeries (AS/400), p (AIX), plus about everything windows. Moving off core systems (z/i/p) isn't simple mostly b
by Shivetya 10y ago
We have most platforms from IBM, z (Mainframe), iSeries (AS/400), p (AIX), plus about everything windows.
Moving off core systems (z/i/p) isn't simple mostly because of the amount of data combined with all the custom applications. every attempt to move the apps off the z don't come to fruition because of scope and the fact it just works. the i is increasing its load to pick up from the z and getting a good dose of webfacing and rest services. these are dead simple to implement and many reuse all the existing code.
talent wise, it really hasn't been much of a challenge in Atlanta/Dallas to find those who can support what is needed. the language isn't the biggest road block for many mainframe systems, its the file systems that can trip people. the i is pure DB2 so anyone versed in SQL can use it and RPG looks more like Pascal these days than that three column stuff people normally associate with it.
the one thing many here don't understand is just how many companies are invested in mainframe, i, and large p series systems. don't scoff at these platforms. with modern tools they can be webfaced just fine and the advantage their default coding languages have is they are business math oriented and simple. with modern features and file systems it just comes down to, what is management comfortable with and does it serve the companies needs.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago> Moving off core systems (z/i/p) isn't simple mostly because of the amount of data combined with all the custom applications. I wonder if someone could get away with selling a z/i/p emulator, akin to Wine. (Or perhaps more appropos, Mame, since the machine architecture would differ as well.)
- eru 10y agoAren't the modern mainframes something like emulators / hypervisors of the old ones already? (IBM still sells you new mainframes.)
- msh 10y agoIBM would never license you the OS.
- forgottenpass 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_(emulator) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_(emulator) The problem isn't the availability of an emulator, it's licensing the OS you want to use on the emulator.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoIBM legally destroyed a business for trying to do that on top of Hercules emulator. You can use the emulator, though, with a licensed copy of their mainframe OS. Common case is you already have license for an actual mainframe then use Hercules for development/debugging/whatever.
- cat199 10y agoThe other part of the equation, software aside, is risk - Anyone using mainframes heavily in the way we are talking about here is probably running something mission critical with lots of $$$ tied into it - and the financial/legal risk of having anything go wrong at all is a huge driver - they want a big company with deep pockets and pages long support agreements backing them, so they can indemnify the other company if there is any problem and shift the blame (and from a personal perspective, cover their own butt). The mainframe using companies also usually have deep pockets, and so even if the mainframe is expensive, it still allows them enough profit margin to support it.. "There is a problem with our IBM mainframe, we have requisitioned a team of 12 people from IBM to investigate and legal is looking into what sort of contractual obligations IBM has if issues aren't resolved" is a much more palatable statement for the fortune-100 CIO to pass along to the CEO than "our IBM emulator seems to be having problems, but the 3 people developing it are on vacation, IT isn't sure if it's an emulator issue or something to do with the new hardware we migrated to run it on 2 years ago, and IBM says they don't support the software when it's run on the emulator. We're calling them again to see if there's some way we can convince them otherwise"