3 ms·
Every organization I've encountered with mainframe dependencies has them not because they are a strategic asset but because the economics and risks of removing
by bhawks 6y ago
Every organization I've encountered with mainframe dependencies has them not because they are a strategic asset but because the economics and risks of removing the mainframe from the system dwarf the expensive costs of the hardware itself.
The biggest lessons the mainframe has to teach software engineers is not around vertical scaling, uptime, backward compatibility or IO throughput but how software quickly becomes a liability and a risk rather than an asset or an advantage when it is not developed in a thoughtful disciplined way.
- stubish 6y agoAnd if they get someone smart enough to do the migration without sinking the business, they won't be repeating mistakes of the past and replacing their entrenched mainframe systems with more mainframes. Unless they are paying IBM to do it, and even IBM will likely be selling something sexier like a private cloud.
- bregma 6y ago> the economics and risks of removing the mainframe from the system dwarf the expensive costs of the hardware itself It's not broken. They need to hire an expert to fix that.
- rbanffy 6y ago> the economics and risks of removing the mainframe from the system dwarf the expensive costs of the hardware itself. Also factor in the unkown risks and costs that will add up in the new solution. There are abundant horror stories of migrations that went bad and had to either be aborted and reversed, or that cost much more than originally expected, to the point of making the move a bad financial decision. > when it is not developed in a thoughtful disciplined way Most organizations don't allocate the budget for that and, if they did, they'd think the hardware is not expensive at all. Any hardware.