3 ms·

Frankly, when was the _last_ time you launched a startup? Why would you waste money on a technology stack which is essentially the physical manifestation of ve

Frankly, when was the _last_ time you launched a startup? Why would you waste money on a technology stack which is essentially the physical manifestation of vendor lock-in and rent seeking, all but guaranteed to grow in cost in lock step with the size of your wallet? It's hard enough to find superlative software engineers and operations staff to work on more mainstream technologies; where are you going to recruit staff proficient in a technology stack alien to most everybody, who also want to shoulder the risk of joining your startup venture? No matter how much IBM wishes it were not so, we've reached a point where you absolutely _can_ (and should) do your computing on a substantially more open platform -- where more than one vendor can provide each layer of the stack that you build on!

bitwize 9y ago
You know how Microsoft is playing nice with Linux and open source these days? IBM did it first, because they knew vendor lock-in was a loser. It may continue to help them squeeze money out of existing customers, but it won't get them many new ones. So they had to pivot on their mainframe strategy. These days, IBM mainframes can not only run Linux and an open source stack on an LPAR, there's even a model of mainframe that is configured to only run Linux. You get the throughput benefits of the mainframe without having to commit to something that's not movable off the platform.
Aloha 9y ago
If you're running Linux on System Z there is no lock in - but in raw performance, even low end system z hardware will (generally) out perform x86 class hardware.
abtinf 9y ago
> when was the _last_ time you launched a startup? 6 years ago. After that, I was an early (< 10 headcount) engineering hire at a couple companies. > all but guaranteed to grow in cost in lock step with the size of your wallet? Check your premises. My general understanding - again, mainframes are not my area - is that IBM almost guarantees falling per-transaction costs over time with Z. > a technology stack alien to most everybody Let IBM maintain the mainframe and let your engineers build on top with whatever tech stack or platform they are comfortable with. IBM invented virtualization in the 60s. And there are quite a few more mainframe engineers out there than you might think.

bitwize 9y ago

You know how Microsoft is playing nice with Linux and open source these days? IBM did it first, because they knew vendor lock-in was a loser. It may continue to help them squeeze money out of existing customers, but it won't get them many new ones. So they had to pivot on their mainframe strategy. These days, IBM mainframes can not only run Linux and an open source stack on an LPAR, there's even a model of mainframe that is configured to only run Linux. You get the throughput benefits of the mainframe without having to commit to something that's not movable off the platform.

Aloha 9y ago

If you're running Linux on System Z there is no lock in - but in raw performance, even low end system z hardware will (generally) out perform x86 class hardware.

abtinf 9y ago

> when was the _last_ time you launched a startup? 6 years ago. After that, I was an early (< 10 headcount) engineering hire at a couple companies. > all but guaranteed to grow in cost in lock step with the size of your wallet? Check your premises. My general understanding - again, mainframes are not my area - is that IBM almost guarantees falling per-transaction costs over time with Z. > a technology stack alien to most everybody Let IBM maintain the mainframe and let your engineers build on top with whatever tech stack or platform they are comfortable with. IBM invented virtualization in the 60s. And there are quite a few more mainframe engineers out there than you might think.