4 ms·

The cloud is the new mainframe. The difference vs the old mainframe is it's so much more accessible to anyone. Barrier to entry to build one will be high, but

The cloud is the new mainframe. The difference vs the old mainframe is it's so much more accessible to anyone. Barrier to entry to build one will be high, but to consume is very low. I'm trying to decide if lock in problem becomes bigger, but I think where people follow modern software engineering best practice, they can move if needed.

ausudhz 4y ago
Without multi-year contacts. I think the only problem reside in applications that require longevity. Many apps nowadays get rewritten every now and then (especially front ends and Middleware) The problem is different for database and core systems.
- pwarner 4y ago
  I think it still comes down to proper software engineering. If you have good interfaces, abstractions, and automated tests, you can move to new systems. I've seen teams struggle to move from DB version x to x+1, taking many many months, but it's because they have no idea if it works after they upgrade. On the flip side you have people like Snowflake who are building a database that runs across multiple clouds. From the outside it appears both portable and optimized for each platform. Thoughtful software engineering, with the right abstractions and test automation are a big deal...
  - ausudhz 4y ago
    Some databases and enterprise application have penalizing contract agreements that prevent cloud migrations from happening.
js8 4y ago
> The difference vs the old mainframe is it's so much more accessible to anyone. As someone who works on zSeries mainframes, I am not sure I agree. For developers, this is true, no doubt. But for organizations, in the cloud your data are locked away in ways they are not on the on-prem mainframe. Vendor lock-in seems to be similar - you use some middleware, you're locked in. With mainframe, there is more control over the infrastructure than in cloud. I see our management (I work for MF utilities vendor) constantly wrestle for control over our customer's environment that would be easily given in cloud (e.g. telemetry). What's also interesting (but slowly changing to the worse), the mainframe infrastructure (z/OS for instance) is quite open to custom modification, IMHO more than cloud (but it depends on type, IaaS/PaaS/SaaS).
- akira2501 4y ago
  > Vendor lock-in seems to be similar - you use some middleware, you're locked in. Is there that much difference between building your infrastructure in DynamoDB vs using IBM DB/2? To me, they seem to create similar levels of "lock in" and create an equal barrier to switching out to a new system... and if you want your data, you're going to dump it, reformat it, and start over. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

ausudhz 4y ago

Without multi-year contacts. I think the only problem reside in applications that require longevity. Many apps nowadays get rewritten every now and then (especially front ends and Middleware) The problem is different for database and core systems.

pwarner 4y ago
I think it still comes down to proper software engineering. If you have good interfaces, abstractions, and automated tests, you can move to new systems. I've seen teams struggle to move from DB version x to x+1, taking many many months, but it's because they have no idea if it works after they upgrade. On the flip side you have people like Snowflake who are building a database that runs across multiple clouds. From the outside it appears both portable and optimized for each platform. Thoughtful software engineering, with the right abstractions and test automation are a big deal...
- ausudhz 4y ago
  Some databases and enterprise application have penalizing contract agreements that prevent cloud migrations from happening.

js8 4y ago

> The difference vs the old mainframe is it's so much more accessible to anyone. As someone who works on zSeries mainframes, I am not sure I agree. For developers, this is true, no doubt. But for organizations, in the cloud your data are locked away in ways they are not on the on-prem mainframe. Vendor lock-in seems to be similar - you use some middleware, you're locked in. With mainframe, there is more control over the infrastructure than in cloud. I see our management (I work for MF utilities vendor) constantly wrestle for control over our customer's environment that would be easily given in cloud (e.g. telemetry). What's also interesting (but slowly changing to the worse), the mainframe infrastructure (z/OS for instance) is quite open to custom modification, IMHO more than cloud (but it depends on type, IaaS/PaaS/SaaS).

akira2501 4y ago
> Vendor lock-in seems to be similar - you use some middleware, you're locked in. Is there that much difference between building your infrastructure in DynamoDB vs using IBM DB/2? To me, they seem to create similar levels of "lock in" and create an equal barrier to switching out to a new system... and if you want your data, you're going to dump it, reformat it, and start over. Or am I misunderstanding your point?