will lack of corporate support kill off Linux?

[Jim Herrmann]

Jeff,
I didn't mean to offend by using the term "PC Weenies".  I was merely using
that in refererence to my earlier statement that systems programmers ridiculed
the LAN managers.  Today I think everyone realizes that it is a different
story, myself included.  I thought the point of the start of the thread was
"lack of corporate support" being an issue.  I, perhaps wrongly, took that to
mean large corporations.  Anil seemed to be writing from somewhere deep in the
bowels of Sprint, certainly a large mainframe shop.  My post was an attempt to
explain a likely scenario of how corporate (big corporate) support may come
about.  In companies of 15 or 20 users, the resistance is far, far less to
begin using a new technology, such as Linux.  In the large corporate
environment, there is an enormous culture that has to be changed to adopt a new
technology.  My point is that the most likely scenario for this to happen in a
large corporation, is from the mainframe down.  Remember that 70% of the worlds
data is on a mainframe computer, and the companies that use mainframe computers
account for a enormous portion of the world's IT budgets.  The companies with
mainframes also have everything else like LANs networks, web servers, etc.  The
vast bulk of the non-mainframe platforms are Windows based.  Many in this group
hope that will change, myself included, which is why I'm on this list in the
first place.

My apologies if I've offended.  I was trying to make a different point than the
one you saw me making.  My bad.

Peace,
Jim Herrmann

BTW, Many reputable studies have shown that the *total* cost of running
applications on PC servers is considerably higher than mainframe costs, if you
run at a large enough scale to require a mainframe.  That, of course, was
considering Windows servers, which would drive up license costs, as well as
support costs, vs. a Linux server farm.  Don't think I've seen any studies yet
comparing Linux to mainframes.  I'll keep my eye out.

JEFF MCCRIGHT wrote:

> Please don't take this personally, but what Mainframe can a 15 or 20 user
> office afford? In the beginning of Business PC's and LANS, the networking
> market was aimed at the smaller companies that couldn't afford to drop
> $100,000.00 or more on a multitasking, multiprocessor, water cooled
> Mainframe, requiring an air conditioned, dust free computer room, and a
> small army of round the clock operators, application and systems
> programmers, and job scheduling personnel. Granted, the Mainframe offers
> tremendous horsepower and centralized application support, but most small
> businesses even today are unable to support the cost. Perhaps the PC,
> Network, and LAN manufacturers should never have opened their target market
> to include the larger corporation. I won't debate that issue in this
> message. I will argue that LAN applications used to be centralized, and run
> from the servers at a substantially lesser cost than a mainframe. Just
> something to consider before you "take the entire network out of the hands
> of the PC Weenies". I believe that each type of system has it's place.
> Mainframes are great for the larger corporations, networked PC's for the
> smaller companies, and some sort of a happy medium/combination for those
> companies that fall in between.
>
> My apologies if I have offended anyone with this message. It is not my
> intention to do so. I do feel that it is important to point out that not all
> scenarios require mainframes, and that I am offended by the term "PC
> Weenies", and the notion that "the entire network should be taken out of our
> hands".
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff McCright
> Desktop Support Analyst
> aka "PC weenie"
>
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:00:38 -0500, jim at itdepends.com wrote:
>
> >  Caution, rant follows.
> >
> >  This is what I see, coming from a mainframe environment.  IBM's
> commitment to
> >  Linux gives it a legitimacy in the board room as well as the "glass
> house"
> >  (which is no longer glass, of course).  The fact that Linux runs on
> OS/390
> >  makes the mainframe system programmers take it seriously.  I think it
> will take
> >  them another year or two to sort out where it fits in the organization,
> but it
> >  WILL happen.  Give it time.  BTW, I know for a fact that Sprint has a
> Linux
> >  region up on their mainframe in a testing environment.  Give it time.
> >
> >  Here's the deal.  The way things used to work in large companies, is all
> of the
> >  computing was done on one central server, the mainframe.  As Windoze
> >  proliferated on the desktop, and LANs were developed, etc. the
> information was
> >  "distributed", which in essence means that now instead of one piece of
> hardware
> >  running at 70-100% utilization, you now have thousands of pieces of
> hardware
> >  running screen savers.  Also the balance of power in the IT culture
> shifted.
> >  In the old days, the mainframe systems programmer was the guru, the top
> dog in
> >  IT.  As the network distributed, this position lost some of it's power
> and
> >  prestige, and the PC LAN administrator (formally ridiculed by the systems
> >  programmers) became increasingly more powerful.  Now, the guys running
> the LAN
> >  see no reason to give up what they've learned, and give up their power in
> the
> >  IT hierarchy, by switching from Windoze NT/2K to Linux.  From their
> personal
> >  stand point, and their employment status, it wouldn't make any sense.
> However,
> >  the systems programmers that work on OS/390 -> z/OS would personally like
> to
> >  see the network servers pulled back up to the mainframe, thus returning
> full
> >  circle, to one box running at full utilization.
> >
> >  Using IBM's VM, a single OS/390 LPAR can run thousands of Linux address
> spaces
> >  which can use the I/O subsystems of the mainframe, which is what makes
> the
> >  mainframe outperform all other types of hardware.  Using this
> architecture, all
> >  file serving for the entire network can be taken out of the hands of the
> PC
> >  weenies, who have to get a new piece of hardware every time they get a
> new
> >  application, and put it back on one central hardware platform that can be
> >  managed, backed up, recovered, tuned, and upgraded with very mature,
> robust,
> >  time tested techniques.  Replace the server farms!
> >
> >  So, you see, it's not the LAN admins that are your allies in the server
> space
> >  at large companies, it's the mainframe guys.  Once you have Linux on the
> >  mainframe, the desktop will follow.  At first on the desk of the people
> >  maintaining the Linux address spaces, then eventually out to the end user
> >  desktops.  Give it time.  It will happen.
> >
> >  That's only my opinion.  I could be wrong.
> >
> >  Peace,
> >  Jim Herrmann
> >
> >  "Philip, Anil" wrote:
> >
> >  > Hi,
> >  > Just a discussion ;), but have you been noticing (like I have) how
> reluctant
> >  > corporations are to use open source - even though they are willing to
> buy
> >  > any crap software at any price as long as it is "owned" by a company so
> that
> >  > someone is liable.
> >  > For example at my workplace, linux is not used, not allowed. In my
> earlier
> >  > workplace, same story (we're talking the biggest phone companies in the
> >  > country).
> >  > Will this sideline open source to academia and maybe kill it off
> eventually?
> >  > thanks,
> >  > Anil Philip
> >  > --------------------------------------------------
> >  > disclaimer: my opinions are my own and do not reflect ....
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/