This reads like a joke. >Talk to anyone who has ever worked on a mainframe and you will see that they are acutely aware of important factors that are sometimes

This reads like a joke. >Talk to anyone who has ever worked on a mainframe and you will see that they are acutely aware of important factors that are sometimes overlooked on other platforms. Things like security, control, scalability, and reliability are second nature to mainframe computer systems and applications. Those things have always been apparent to the majority of my distributed peers. > Well, it is because of the robust system management processes and procedures which are in place and working extremely well within every mainframe shop in the world. This is simply not the case for Windows, Unix, and other platforms. By working on mainframe systems newbies will learn the correct IT discipline for managing mission-critical software. This just isn't logical, and he's not providing evidence. I think what he means is that by working fresh out of college in an environment with good processes the programmer will learn those processes, and become a better programmer. Why that required a mainframe environment isn't mentioned. It's also obviously not required, since there are plenty of places out there that run mission-critical software on non-mainframe systems, and have excellent processes in place. I suspect the root here is that mainframe systems are so exorbitantly expensive that the additional expensive processes are required to maximize ROI, hence those processes being more likely to be in place, and rigorously enforced in a mainframe environment. All the processes mentioned are required to be in place and well managed for all mission-critical systems - there's no actual argument here requiring a mainframe, except that it's more likely to be an indicator of good processes.