7 ms·

I don't really share the reverence for mainframes. While they have certain cool unique features, like extreme resiliance, that doesn't matter very much because

I don't really share the reverence for mainframes. While they have certain cool unique features, like extreme resiliance, that doesn't matter very much because all the low-level details can be abstracted away. We have learned to build reliable systems on "commodity" hardware. In all the other places where mainframes are different, they are not only utterly alien, but I would also argue inferior. Focus on 60s languages, weird menu-based OSes, no proper Unicode support (judging from plane tickets and payrolls with missing symbols), and so on. That they hold out in "important" areas like banking and insurances is especially damning. This is the "allocation" layer of our society and is also hopelessly obsolete. The way we allocate resources has not caught up with our technological development. My personal belief is, one day, when we make the step to "capitalism++" - I don't know what it will look like, but it will compare to our current society like that compared to feudalism - then all that legacy infrastructure will become unneccessary.

adwn 4y ago
That was a wild ride – from a reasonable start of "mainframes are a sub-optimal compromise" via "important foundations of our society rely on obsolete systems" all the way to "we'll replace capitalism with something completely different and better, but I don't know what".
- 2fast4you 4y ago
  They said we’d replace capitalism with another version of capitalism, he didn’t say it would be better
  - adwn 4y ago
    It was implied: >> it will compare to our current society like that compared to feudalism Unless you disagree that our current society is better than feudalism?
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      Speak for yourself. My family was faring really well under feudalism ;-)
    - 2fast4you 4y ago
      I think he was saying capitalism is an evolution of feudalism
rahen 4y ago
> We have learned to build reliable systems on "commodity" hardware. It is still cobbled together, and it still doesn't compare with what a mainframe can offer in reliability, security, resource efficiency and technical debt. Mainframes are the original computers, if anything the microcomputers are more alien. They had virtual machines from the early 70s, Z/OS can still run code from the 360 and maybe even the 1401, and it still has far fewer vulnerabilities, part from obscurity, part from a smaller attack surface compared to general public systems like Linux. Nothing wrong with CICS and 3270 either, which you seem to call "menu based OS". These are extremely resource efficient presentation layers. Also, i and Z basically are turnkey systems. They require close to no sysadmin, you don't have to run after the latest update to fix the latest issue. How many vulnerabilities had to be patched in the 51 years of existence of the 3270 protocol? I would trust a mainframe a lot more than a cloud based, or worse, anything based on Linux or Kubernetes when it comes to reliability and security - in fact, I bet an app running on such a solution will be considered obsolete in a mere 15 years (if not 10). I've seen companies running their own internal mainframe classes just because there's no suitable alternative to replace them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dangus 4y ago
  You might as well say that battle tanks are better than Toyota Corollas. I'm sure a battle tank is safer in an accident but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for a daily driver. The goal of a business is to produce as many outputs as possible with as few inputs as possible. If mainframes are so much better, why don't you own one? Why doesn't your company own one? I see a Z 2828 on eBay for $9,995, sounds like a pretty good deal! I know the Raspberry Pis that run my self-hosted services only cost me $200, but, like you said, you get what you pay for! Where the heck is my credit card!? Mainframes are a dying breed because they aren't a solution for 99.9% of businesses (yes, that's right, literally 99.9% of businesses have fewer than 500 employees). [1] By the time a new business has grown large enough to potentially benefit from a mainframe architecture, it has been using x86/ARM commodity computing for years/decades. The only way a business would ever choose mainframes would be if they were already gigantic businesses before microcomputers were invented and their business has a high amount of clerical overhead. This is why banks and airlines ended up with mainframes. Having the best, most resilient technology possible isn't the end goal of most businesses. The goal of a business is to sell things and make money. Computing is essentially a cost center where the lowest bidder wins, where the cheapest possible solution is always the best one as long as the level of risk is acceptable. [1] https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/ https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/
tyingq 4y ago
A lot of the holdouts are specifically z/OS mainframes running TPF. It's a distinctly different OS than z/OS (what MVS is now called). Used by VISA and the Airline industry. They've both had multiple attempts over the years to replace TPF, with varying degrees of success. Amadeus/Altea just barely finished getting rid of their mainframes. The other big GDS systems are still working on it. I don't think it was lack of desire or commitment of resources. ITA spent quite a lot trying to replace it, with an unusual collection of the best/brightest, and was able to replace the shopping piece successfully, but stalled on commercial success of the booking part. It's just a hard problem to solve. TPF is incredibly good at extremely high transaction rates in a distributed fashion with high reliability.

adwn 4y ago

That was a wild ride – from a reasonable start of "mainframes are a sub-optimal compromise" via "important foundations of our society rely on obsolete systems" all the way to "we'll replace capitalism with something completely different and better, but I don't know what".

2fast4you 4y ago
They said we’d replace capitalism with another version of capitalism, he didn’t say it would be better
- adwn 4y ago
  It was implied: >> it will compare to our current society like that compared to feudalism Unless you disagree that our current society is better than feudalism?
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    Speak for yourself. My family was faring really well under feudalism ;-)
  - 2fast4you 4y ago
    I think he was saying capitalism is an evolution of feudalism

rahen 4y ago

> We have learned to build reliable systems on "commodity" hardware. It is still cobbled together, and it still doesn't compare with what a mainframe can offer in reliability, security, resource efficiency and technical debt. Mainframes are the original computers, if anything the microcomputers are more alien. They had virtual machines from the early 70s, Z/OS can still run code from the 360 and maybe even the 1401, and it still has far fewer vulnerabilities, part from obscurity, part from a smaller attack surface compared to general public systems like Linux. Nothing wrong with CICS and 3270 either, which you seem to call "menu based OS". These are extremely resource efficient presentation layers. Also, i and Z basically are turnkey systems. They require close to no sysadmin, you don't have to run after the latest update to fix the latest issue. How many vulnerabilities had to be patched in the 51 years of existence of the 3270 protocol? I would trust a mainframe a lot more than a cloud based, or worse, anything based on Linux or Kubernetes when it comes to reliability and security - in fact, I bet an app running on such a solution will be considered obsolete in a mere 15 years (if not 10). I've seen companies running their own internal mainframe classes just because there's no suitable alternative to replace them.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dangus 4y ago
You might as well say that battle tanks are better than Toyota Corollas. I'm sure a battle tank is safer in an accident but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for a daily driver. The goal of a business is to produce as many outputs as possible with as few inputs as possible. If mainframes are so much better, why don't you own one? Why doesn't your company own one? I see a Z 2828 on eBay for $9,995, sounds like a pretty good deal! I know the Raspberry Pis that run my self-hosted services only cost me $200, but, like you said, you get what you pay for! Where the heck is my credit card!? Mainframes are a dying breed because they aren't a solution for 99.9% of businesses (yes, that's right, literally 99.9% of businesses have fewer than 500 employees). [1] By the time a new business has grown large enough to potentially benefit from a mainframe architecture, it has been using x86/ARM commodity computing for years/decades. The only way a business would ever choose mainframes would be if they were already gigantic businesses before microcomputers were invented and their business has a high amount of clerical overhead. This is why banks and airlines ended up with mainframes. Having the best, most resilient technology possible isn't the end goal of most businesses. The goal of a business is to sell things and make money. Computing is essentially a cost center where the lowest bidder wins, where the cheapest possible solution is always the best one as long as the level of risk is acceptable. [1] https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/ https://www.chamberofcommerce.org/small-business-statistics/

tyingq 4y ago

A lot of the holdouts are specifically z/OS mainframes running TPF. It's a distinctly different OS than z/OS (what MVS is now called). Used by VISA and the Airline industry. They've both had multiple attempts over the years to replace TPF, with varying degrees of success. Amadeus/Altea just barely finished getting rid of their mainframes. The other big GDS systems are still working on it. I don't think it was lack of desire or commitment of resources. ITA spent quite a lot trying to replace it, with an unusual collection of the best/brightest, and was able to replace the shopping piece successfully, but stalled on commercial success of the booking part. It's just a hard problem to solve. TPF is incredibly good at extremely high transaction rates in a distributed fashion with high reliability.