Larry Qualig wrote:
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Mainframe programming and open source -- Where's the beef?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Open-source advocates often cite lower software prices, "power to the
>> | masses", or avoidance of vendor lock-in. However, a key value of open
>> | source is the ability of IT shops to tap into open source development
>> | and its methodologies to enhance applications. Open source and
>> | collaborative programming not only leverage programming power outside
>> | the enterprise or overseas, but also improve the quality of in-house
>> | proprietary programming, making not only business-critical applications
>> | but entire platforms much more effective.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | Open source is steadily increasing its presence, from the bottom of
>> | the software stack up. Linux (operating systems), Netscape Navigator
>> | (browsers), and Apache (application servers) are now being joined by
>> | office automation suites, development tools (Eclipse), databases
>> | (mySQL, PostgreSQL, and Berkeley DB [now part of Oracle]), and now data
>> | integration tools (Jitterbit, aimed at bringing data integration to
>> | medium-sized firms). Developers -- especially open-source ones -- can
>> | use these solutions as class libraries that they can invoke in order
>> | to handle infrastructure across platforms.
>> `----
>>
>>
http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid80_gci1215521,00.html
>
> Companies who buy and run mainframes are not looking to save a few
> dollars in software costs. If that were the case they would use a *nix
> machine in place of the mainframe. They spend a million plus on a
> mainframe for nine-9's uptime and reliability (99.9999999%) and for the
> benefits that something like zOS gives them.
>
> If they wanted to run Linux they wouldn't buy a mainframe in the first
> place.
You mean the IBM Z-series do not qualify as "mainframes"?
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
|
|
