4 ms·

Your definition thriving isn't too far from mine, I think we just differ as to the expectations we have about the platform in the future. IBM offers a compelli

Your definition thriving isn't too far from mine, I think we just differ as to the expectations we have about the platform in the future. IBM offers a compelling option: - yes, your software will continue to run, because that's what the mainframe is for - yes, it will scale with whatever transaction volume you need in the future, because that's what the mainframe is for - yes, you can get 99.999999999999999% uptime, because you have reliability built into the platform in astounding depth - yes, we'll happily help develop new functionality and support your in house staff in managing this system; the mainframe can actually detect faults and arrange a service call. It's expensive, but it's a safe bet in at very least the medium term. The alternative is quite risky in most cases, and perhaps less expensive over the medium term if it works out. Nothing is sustainable forever, but that sounds like a pretty hopeful story for IBM over the medium term. Long term, who knows, but eventually we're all dead anyway.

marcosdumay 6y ago
> - yes, your software will continue to run, because that's what the mainframe is for Maybe if you are using zos without any niche configuration. IBM has discontinued many mainframe platforms in the past, and there's no guarantee that next year they won't approach you with a 10x markup on your renting costs, that will become 50x in a couple of years and will keep going up until you decide to stop paying. > yes, it will scale with whatever transaction volume you need in the future, because that's what the mainframe is for Only if you gave-up on data dependency from the beginning. Transactions here means independent data processing, with possible rollbacks, not the relational concept people got used to on databases. If one needs relational data, it won't scale. NoSQL can scale with non-relational data too, it's not an exclusivity of mainframes. > yes, you can get 99.999999999999999% uptime, because you have reliability built into the platform in astounding depth That one is ridiculous. Uptime is limited by business code bugs, network and power outages, integration problems, and well, all that causes 90% of the downtime on a single-server shop. All the mainframe promises is that the hardware won't be a problem. > yes, we'll happily help develop new functionality and support your in house staff in managing this system; the mainframe can actually detect faults and arrange a service call. Yes, mainframes come with support contracts. You can get support for other platforms too, with the advantage that you won't need to hire IBM. Anyway, none of that changes the fact that nobody wants to start using a mainframe nowadays, and that the people using them are either looking on how to replace them or avoiding increasing their usage. IBM will certainly be able to milk that market over the medium term, even more if they keep increasing their prices. They revenue may even go up for a while. But that's not thriving.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  You are completely missing the point. I'm not arguing that any other solution can't offer the same kinds of things that the mainframe can. Imagine you are a CIO. You have mainframe apps. Everything I said is true of your existing solution. If you keep it as is, it works just fine for the foreseeable future. Every other way forward requires a total rewrite of systems that have been stable for years and are typically mission critical financial and transaction processing systems. That's what I mean by IBM having a compelling offering.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Problem is you can't keep it long term. As CIO you are also aware that the code has some ugly parts that are hard to maintain. You are also well aware of the cost to update the code (tax laws, or new features). You are very well aware of how hard it is to hire anyone competent who is willing to work in the language that it uses - mainframe languages are seen as a dead end. There is a lot less risk long term in leaving the mainframe behind, the only question is can you there without destroying the company. There are advantages to the mainframe, but there are disadvantages too. As a CIO your job is to consider both.
    - azinman2 6y ago
      Do mainframes only run on COBOL? What are these languages? Or is it that some program written in 1972 is still running everything at United Airlines today? My understanding is at least Java is well supported on mainframes. It's not the latest greatest language, but it sure beats ALGOL.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Java, C, C++ and Fortran, POSIX environments as well. Then Algol, COBOL, RPG, NEWP, PL/I.
      - neverartful 6y ago
        I had some colleagues who had worked on mainframe operating systems tailored for the airlines (PARS), and it's built upon TPF as I understand it. I don't know which language(s) it's implemented in, but I do recall them talking about assembler having a major role.

marcosdumay 6y ago

> - yes, your software will continue to run, because that's what the mainframe is for Maybe if you are using zos without any niche configuration. IBM has discontinued many mainframe platforms in the past, and there's no guarantee that next year they won't approach you with a 10x markup on your renting costs, that will become 50x in a couple of years and will keep going up until you decide to stop paying. > yes, it will scale with whatever transaction volume you need in the future, because that's what the mainframe is for Only if you gave-up on data dependency from the beginning. Transactions here means independent data processing, with possible rollbacks, not the relational concept people got used to on databases. If one needs relational data, it won't scale. NoSQL can scale with non-relational data too, it's not an exclusivity of mainframes. > yes, you can get 99.999999999999999% uptime, because you have reliability built into the platform in astounding depth That one is ridiculous. Uptime is limited by business code bugs, network and power outages, integration problems, and well, all that causes 90% of the downtime on a single-server shop. All the mainframe promises is that the hardware won't be a problem. > yes, we'll happily help develop new functionality and support your in house staff in managing this system; the mainframe can actually detect faults and arrange a service call. Yes, mainframes come with support contracts. You can get support for other platforms too, with the advantage that you won't need to hire IBM. Anyway, none of that changes the fact that nobody wants to start using a mainframe nowadays, and that the people using them are either looking on how to replace them or avoiding increasing their usage. IBM will certainly be able to milk that market over the medium term, even more if they keep increasing their prices. They revenue may even go up for a while. But that's not thriving.

meepmorp 6y ago
You are completely missing the point. I'm not arguing that any other solution can't offer the same kinds of things that the mainframe can. Imagine you are a CIO. You have mainframe apps. Everything I said is true of your existing solution. If you keep it as is, it works just fine for the foreseeable future. Every other way forward requires a total rewrite of systems that have been stable for years and are typically mission critical financial and transaction processing systems. That's what I mean by IBM having a compelling offering.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Problem is you can't keep it long term. As CIO you are also aware that the code has some ugly parts that are hard to maintain. You are also well aware of the cost to update the code (tax laws, or new features). You are very well aware of how hard it is to hire anyone competent who is willing to work in the language that it uses - mainframe languages are seen as a dead end. There is a lot less risk long term in leaving the mainframe behind, the only question is can you there without destroying the company. There are advantages to the mainframe, but there are disadvantages too. As a CIO your job is to consider both.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    Do mainframes only run on COBOL? What are these languages? Or is it that some program written in 1972 is still running everything at United Airlines today? My understanding is at least Java is well supported on mainframes. It's not the latest greatest language, but it sure beats ALGOL.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Java, C, C++ and Fortran, POSIX environments as well. Then Algol, COBOL, RPG, NEWP, PL/I.
    - neverartful 6y ago
      I had some colleagues who had worked on mainframe operating systems tailored for the airlines (PARS), and it's built upon TPF as I understand it. I don't know which language(s) it's implemented in, but I do recall them talking about assembler having a major role.