IBM System Z on Facebook posted a link to the following article:
The article is actually pretty good, if you take statements like this with a grain of...silicon:
"While mainframes' functions are fairly well documented, like HAL, there is still an air of mystery about them, at least for non-engineers, who are typically reticent to simply switch them to the "off" position."
Why is it that in the middle of an article that is ostensibly extolling the virtues of the mainframe, and doing a pretty good job of it, do they have to insert such idiocy? Is she really insinuating that mainframes are still running because people are AFRAID to SWITCH them OFF? Yikes. Personally, I've done several power-on-reset's in the past few years. It's not as dramatic as flipping a BRS (big red switch), but it sure as heck simulates the same thing.
The author sums it up nicely with some quotes from Howard Rubin, of Rubin Worldwide: "The choice of a computing platform is an economic- and service- and risk-based decision. It's not a fashion decision." That is a great quote to keep in our back pockets, and I can't wait to use it to put someone in their place. :)
Another quote I like is Ameriprise Financial CIO Randy Kupper's: "The mainframe is back to the future".
We've seen positive articles in our mainframe magazines, but that's, well, preaching to the choir, so to speak. I'm very happy to see this kind of article in something like Wall Street Tech. (Disclosure: This does not seem to be affiliated with the Wall Street Journal.)
So I guess my question is, "Is the tide turning in favor of the mainframe?" I certainly hope so!
Until next time...