Replies

IBM's mainframe business is primarily to old guard companies who upgrade existing systems. They don't get a whole lot of new deployments of mainframes.

IBM's mainframe business is making money. And no sign of it stopping. And some of the new mainframe deployments (new deployments? Yes, sorry to wreck your dreams) are using Linux. And replacing their existing NT with it.

That's primarily because the technology is 30 years old. You can accomplish much of the same thing with good clustering. But that would mean rewriting the software -- something the feds have little inclination (and probably existing expertise) to do.

Of course, mainframes do get old and wear out. And there are many new technology areas that would require a complete new set of software. So if clustering bittyboxes made sense, that would be the time to do it. But no, the military keeps buying bigger and bigger mainframes and writing new software for them.

Please tell me you aren't using universities as a model for technology deployments.

Yeah, there isn't any new technology coming out of universities. Let me see, AI, genetics, astronomy, and physics. Nope, no advancements there.

It hasn't had an opportunity to displace mainframes primarily because it hasn't existed previously.

Seems like the Windows crowd wants it both ways. Clustering hasn't had the chance to displace mainframes because it's so new. (Never mind that Cray was using clustering in the 70's) But Windows is established in the desktop market and Linux just it too new to displace it.

So, which is it?

IBM's mainframe business is making money. And no sign of it stopping.

So is Dell. What's your point? I didn't say its business was dead. I said that it is a mature business that isn't growing.

And some of the new mainframe deployments (new deployments? Yes, sorry to wreck your dreams) are using Linux. And replacing their existing NT with it.

Not many, dude. Moving to untested Linux from battle-hardened VMS/CICS/MVS is a fool's errand. I don't know of any company that's doing it seriously.

But no, the military keeps buying bigger and bigger mainframes and writing new software for them.

First, they're deploying old software to those mainframes. And secondly, since you're using that hardware, it doesn't make sense to use clustered PCs because you've already made the investment in mainframes. So you write new software targeted at those new mainframes. No mystery there. And it doesn't make the mainframe approach any better. Just easier to manage and deploy based on past needs.

Yeah, there isn't any new technology coming out of universities. Let me see, AI, genetics, astronomy, and physics. Nope, no advancements there.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but ... the reason they're using that hardware is that they don't have the budget to invest in new hardware, dude.

Seems like the Windows crowd wants it both ways. Clustering hasn't had the chance to displace mainframes because it's so new. (Never mind that Cray was using clustering in the 70's) But Windows is established in the desktop market and Linux just it too new to displace it.

Windows isn't the only way to do clustering and I've never argued that. You can cluster mainframes, for chrissake. But clearly, this is the first time that that kind of power has been available at such a reasonable price level. Whether Linux or Windows, there's no arguing that clustering is going to give mainframe vendors a serious run for their money in the future. IBM wins because they play both sides of the fence. If you want to bet on a winner, bet on IBM.