Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Mainframes in today's desktop/laptop envoronments.

Reply
Thread Tools

Mainframes in today's desktop/laptop envoronments.

 
 
Crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> In article <m0%He.5446$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>In my book mainframes were originally machines that ran an operating system on
>>hardware that came from the same vendor.

>
>
> What about Amdahl and the other "plug-compatible" mainframe vendors,
> then? (All extinct now, of course.)


Therefore a little irrelevant now - but they contributed to what was otherwise a
mainframe environment.

Crash.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
In article <IzFIe.465$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>> In article <m0%He.5446$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>In my book mainframes were originally machines that ran an operating system
>>>on hardware that came from the same vendor.

>>
>> What about Amdahl and the other "plug-compatible" mainframe vendors,
>> then? (All extinct now, of course.)

>
>Therefore a little irrelevant now - but they contributed to what was otherwise
>a mainframe environment.


But counterexamples to the idea that OS and hardware had to come from
the same vendor, were they not?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> In article <IzFIe.465$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>>
>>>In article <m0%He.5446$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In my book mainframes were originally machines that ran an operating system
>>>>on hardware that came from the same vendor.
>>>
>>>What about Amdahl and the other "plug-compatible" mainframe vendors,
>>>then? (All extinct now, of course.)

>>
>>Therefore a little irrelevant now - but they contributed to what was otherwise
>>a mainframe environment.

>
>
> But counterexamples to the idea that OS and hardware had to come from
> the same vendor, were they not?


They emulated the OS manufacturers hardware well enough to fool the OS...

Crash.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:50:22 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
DčOliveiro didst scrawl:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>... and since Linux is POSIX-compliant ...

>
> Actually it isn't.


Depends which part of POSIX, really. It's not fully-compliant, certainly.
But name me an OS that is.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:50:22 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
>DčOliveiro didst scrawl:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>... and since Linux is POSIX-compliant ...

>>
>> Actually it isn't.

>
>Depends which part of POSIX, really. It's not fully-compliant, certainly.
>But name me an OS that is.


Windows NT?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
In article <1CGIe.493$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>> In article <IzFIe.465$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <m0%He.5446$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> Crash <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In my book mainframes were originally machines that ran an operating
>>>>>system on hardware that came from the same vendor.
>>>>
>>>>What about Amdahl and the other "plug-compatible" mainframe vendors,
>>>>then? (All extinct now, of course.)
>>>
>>>Therefore a little irrelevant now - but they contributed to what was
>>>otherwise
>>>a mainframe environment.

>>
>>
>> But counterexamples to the idea that OS and hardware had to come from
>> the same vendor, were they not?

>
>They emulated the OS manufacturers hardware well enough to fool the OS...


It was hardware not from the OS vendor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:38:33 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
DčOliveiro didst scrawl:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

*SNIP*
>>Depends which part of POSIX, really. It's not fully-compliant, certainly.
>>But name me an OS that is.

>
> Windows NT?


Not that I was aware of. POSIX is a group of standards, and I don't think
anything can be fully POSIX-compliant simply because the standards cover
so many different aspects of software management and development.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
thingy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2005
Crash wrote:
> thingy wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> I believe IBM sold more mainframes in the last year or two than in the
>> previous few years after they ported Linux to it, they saw a big
>> re-surgence in interest.
>>

> No, my opinion is that they sold more hardware units by allowing some
> hardware formerly running only a proprietary IBM OS to also run Linux.
>
>> I think they sold 1 or 2 to a large swedish ISP so it could do virtual
>> web hosting with thousands of Linux instances. There have been some
>> others.
>>
>> I think the mainframe is still very valid technology, in fact its
>> almsot more secure in its niche than Unix is in the data centre. There
>> are lots of legacy stuff running on A series, EDS has a few I think
>> they are IRD boxes if I recall which is not practical to move. So its
>> quite possible that with Linux on the main frame sustaining it at the
>> top and Linux and windows on the bottom pushing up, Unix might get
>> squeezed out of existance.

>
>
> Understood but as I said in an earlier response there are two areas in
> which mainframes are unique and Linux is disqualified from one of them -
> meaning that no Linux box can ever be a mainframe.
>
> Crash.


It depends on your defination of a mainframe.

With virtual server and vmware partitioning of MS and Linux is quite
possible.

Unix has had domains for years, and I always found it interesting that a
128 cpu box was often split up into 4 or 8 cpu domains. seemed to defeat
the purpose given the high cost of the box to hold those 128 cpus.

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 23:38:33 +1200, someone purporting to be Lawrence
>DčOliveiro didst scrawl:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Matthew Poole <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>>... name me an OS that is [POSIX-compliant].

>>
>> Windows NT?

>
>Not that I was aware of. POSIX is a group of standards, and I don't think
>anything can be fully POSIX-compliant simply because the standards cover
>so many different aspects of software management and development.


And yet Windows NT was able to pass POSIX compliance sufficiently around
1993 to get through the GOSIP requirements (which the US Federal
government were imposing on all their IT purchases at the time).

If you remember, a lot of noise was being made up to that time
(principally by Scott McNealy of Sun) about "open" systems, which seemed
to mean essentially "Unix" (and certainly not "open source"). This was
basically a strategy to try to keep Microsoft out of the big-corporate
arena, where it was starting to make lots of inroads at this time.

Once Windows NT passed its POSIX compliance, it officially became an
"open" system, which took the wind out of the sails of the whole "open
systems" movement somewhat.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2005
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 08:19:38 +1200, someone purporting to be thingy didst
scrawl:

> Crash wrote:

*SNIP*
> Unix has had domains for years, and I always found it interesting that a
> 128 cpu box was often split up into 4 or 8 cpu domains. seemed to defeat
> the purpose given the high cost of the box to hold those 128 cpus.
>

That cost would still be far lower than the cost of 16 or 32 eight- or
four-way servers. Maybe not in initial capital outlay, though I think even
there it would win, but also in physical footprint and power
consumption/cooling.

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
can a DB2 DBA (Mainframes) become ORACLE/MSSQL DBA LMPS Computer Information 1 05-08-2007 03:08 PM
.NET in Mainframes ?????? =?Utf-8?B?bWFr?= MCSD 1 03-15-2006 04:46 PM
MCFD and Mainframes Dinosaur Eric MCSD 5 08-04-2004 05:47 PM
Re: Regarding mainframes Consultant MCSE 0 10-14-2003 04:04 PM
Re: Regarding mainframes =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?= MCSE 0 10-14-2003 01:48 PM



Advertisments