(rewritten by suggestion - same content, different vibe) Many of you came here to talk ish about mainframes, and by doing so you precisely illustrate why new I

(rewritten by suggestion - same content, different vibe) Many of you came here to talk ish about mainframes, and by doing so you precisely illustrate why new IT people need to learn about mainframes. It's disingenuous to say that GNU/Linux is getting better when that is hardly the case. It has business-itis. One distro's lessons don't translate well or sometimes at all to another's. It's growing subsystems and methods that don't have well thought out or even decently documented rationale, and the rate of change doesn't appear to be slowing. By trying to make examples of some of the worse characteristics of mainframes, some of you are showing that you're not speaking to the article at all. The point is that what we call modern with regards to reliability is simply aggregation and redundancy. It's a collection of solutions to symptoms and they don't address the underlying problems at all. This is nohow like a mainframe. Not even a little bit. Heck - a modern virtual machine farm can't even cluster as well as VMS can cluster. Why? Because our virtual machine farms have evolved to fix the symptoms that come from the problems of less reliability, and have taken little or nothing from mainframes. Mainframes have already learned about the problems of reliability, addressed those problems, then moved on, and they did that half a century ago.