Mainframes have always been expensive. The hardware is expensive in the first place, and the software is expensive to run on it. That’s the main reason given by many organizations for migrating off the mainframe – it’s too expensive. A couple of Windows laptops and a bit of freeware downloaded off the Internet and you’re back in business!! Well, the old Dinosaur Myth publication put that sort of logic in its place years ago, and, although the publication is a good few years out-of-date now, the theory behind it is still correct.
And for people who have never seen the Dinosaur Myth, you can still download a copy from http://www.arcati.com/dinomyth.htm.
So, we’re left with the unenviable conclusion that all computing is expensive, it’s just whether you’re prepared to pay the money up front or you’re forced to pay out later.
This rather grim conclusion would lead one to ask, is there any way of saving money? And the answer is a pleasing "Yes". Traditionally, mainframes have a General Purpose Processor (GPP) that performs all the processing on the computer. Usage of that processor has been measured in Millions of Instructions Per Second (MIPS) and that has given IBM an easy way to charge for their computers – on how much work you are making them do, ie how many MIPS they are using. It’s a bit like charging for van hire by how many miles the van goes while it is being rented. What users really wanted was some other processing engine that could do some processing and reduce the MIPS used by the GPP. IBM came up with such a solution. They invented (and of course sold) specialty processors. I’m talking here about zIIP (System z9 Integration Information Processor) and zAAP (System z Application Assist Processor). Basically, any workloads run on these specialty engines do not form part of an organization’s contracted mainframe processing capacity. So their use results in a reduction in that organization’s Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). As a consequence, not only do they get reduced software costs, they also get additional processing capacity – and that can be used to eliminate or delay the next upgrade
It’s a bit of a swings and roundabouts situation though. An organization needs to pay for a specialty processor, and it needs to buy software that can make use of the specialty processor, and then it can start saving money – I hear the sound of Excel Pivot tables being used to present the result of what can be quite a complicated calculation. But is there any software that can make use of this hardware? We know about DB2, but that’s from IBM. What else is there? DataDirect’s Shadow software has been around for a little while, and last week NEON Enterprise Software announced that Version 5.1 of its Eclipse Reorganization Utilities for IMS will.
NEON claims in its press release that by using Eclipse Reorganization Utilities, it is possible for customers to experience capacity gains of more than 70 percent for some IMS database maintenance processing.
Now that more software is becoming available to exploit specialty engines, it does seem that users could have a way to save money on their mainframes.
Sunday, 18 May 2008
Sunday, 11 May 2008
What a gadget!
I recently bought a Nokia E90 Communicator – which is a tool that comes under the category of mobile phone, but I have found it so useful for ‘everything’ that I thought I’d tell you about it.
When you first see it, it looks like a phone from the early ’90s – you know, a bit like a brick. But the great thing about it is that it opens up and you have a small computer that you can keep in your pocket! The actual dimensions are 132mm x 57mm x 20mm, and it weighs in at 210g. You can have a look at the Nokia Web site at http://www.nokia.co.uk/A4353371 to see what it looks like. Internally, it’s running Symbian OS V9.2, S60 R3.1.
So, why do I think it’s so clever? Well, it can scan for wifi networks, and, provided I have a WEP key (or it is open) then I can surf the Internet for free. It’s less easy than on a PC, but it’s certainly doable. I have my Web site (www.eddolls.com), my company Web site (www.itech-ed.com), this blog, Yahoo, Google, and the Virtual IMS Connection (www.virtualims.com) Web sites as Favourites/Bookmarks. So when I am out meeting people, I can show them Web sites or search the net, or whatever.
The other feature I’ve been using a lot is copying files (documents, spreadsheets, and, more recently, presentations) onto the phone’s microSD card, and then taking that with me. I have been able to show Powepoint presentations on my phone! Yes, it was far from ideal, but it worked. It certainly works for minutes and meeting agendas stored as Word documents. It’s also easy to look up budget items in Excel without having large amounts of paper spread all over the place. It can also handle ZIP files and PDFs (I’ve used that a few times as well). So with browsing and accessing documents, it has replaced my little laptop.
The other good thing it has is a media player. I have uploaded lots of songs and now use my phone instead of having to take my mp3 player. It means I have to remember only one piece of technology. I also keep some recent photos of my family on my phone to show old friends when we meet. The screen quality is very good and it’s easy to zoom in. Of course, the phone has a camera, which can be used for stills or video. It can also be used as a bar-code reader! But I’ve not tried that yet.
There is a radio attached, which I’ve only used once. Importantly, all my contact information is on that phone. Everyone’s name, address, and multiple phone numbers – home, office, mobile, fax, etc. Plus the calendar facility has my complete diary on it. If you ask am I free next Wednesday at 10:00, I’ll be able to tell you.
There’s also a GPS facility on the phone that identifies where you are. I need to find time to try out this facility further. It has Bluetooth, and I’ve used that to swap ring tones with friends. In fact I have personalized ring tones so I can recognize who is phoning me. I also have photos associated with some of my contacts.
The battery seems pretty good for such multi-featured device. What else… I have installed a couple of games – just to see whether I could. I have sent and received loads of text messages. Oh, yes, nearly forgot, I have used it to make phone calls!! The volume is very good and the sound quality is very clear.
It is the perfect smartphone/PDA. It is handier than a small laptop for carrying around. If you are planning an upgrade to your PDA or mobile phone, definitely take a look at this device.
In comparison, my new Blackberry 8120 is an absolute nightmare. Any hints and tips about how to do the simplest things on this chocolate teapot will be gratefully received.
And finally, a correction to last week’s blog… Wrongly, I said that Opalis had been bought by CA. This is NOT the case. Opalis and CA have recently signed a partnership agreement, but no-one has been bought. I hope that clarifies the point.
And finally, finally (!), the IMS survey is still running. If you haven’t completed it yet, go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d. Many thanks.
When you first see it, it looks like a phone from the early ’90s – you know, a bit like a brick. But the great thing about it is that it opens up and you have a small computer that you can keep in your pocket! The actual dimensions are 132mm x 57mm x 20mm, and it weighs in at 210g. You can have a look at the Nokia Web site at http://www.nokia.co.uk/A4353371 to see what it looks like. Internally, it’s running Symbian OS V9.2, S60 R3.1.
So, why do I think it’s so clever? Well, it can scan for wifi networks, and, provided I have a WEP key (or it is open) then I can surf the Internet for free. It’s less easy than on a PC, but it’s certainly doable. I have my Web site (www.eddolls.com), my company Web site (www.itech-ed.com), this blog, Yahoo, Google, and the Virtual IMS Connection (www.virtualims.com) Web sites as Favourites/Bookmarks. So when I am out meeting people, I can show them Web sites or search the net, or whatever.
The other feature I’ve been using a lot is copying files (documents, spreadsheets, and, more recently, presentations) onto the phone’s microSD card, and then taking that with me. I have been able to show Powepoint presentations on my phone! Yes, it was far from ideal, but it worked. It certainly works for minutes and meeting agendas stored as Word documents. It’s also easy to look up budget items in Excel without having large amounts of paper spread all over the place. It can also handle ZIP files and PDFs (I’ve used that a few times as well). So with browsing and accessing documents, it has replaced my little laptop.
The other good thing it has is a media player. I have uploaded lots of songs and now use my phone instead of having to take my mp3 player. It means I have to remember only one piece of technology. I also keep some recent photos of my family on my phone to show old friends when we meet. The screen quality is very good and it’s easy to zoom in. Of course, the phone has a camera, which can be used for stills or video. It can also be used as a bar-code reader! But I’ve not tried that yet.
There is a radio attached, which I’ve only used once. Importantly, all my contact information is on that phone. Everyone’s name, address, and multiple phone numbers – home, office, mobile, fax, etc. Plus the calendar facility has my complete diary on it. If you ask am I free next Wednesday at 10:00, I’ll be able to tell you.
There’s also a GPS facility on the phone that identifies where you are. I need to find time to try out this facility further. It has Bluetooth, and I’ve used that to swap ring tones with friends. In fact I have personalized ring tones so I can recognize who is phoning me. I also have photos associated with some of my contacts.
The battery seems pretty good for such multi-featured device. What else… I have installed a couple of games – just to see whether I could. I have sent and received loads of text messages. Oh, yes, nearly forgot, I have used it to make phone calls!! The volume is very good and the sound quality is very clear.
It is the perfect smartphone/PDA. It is handier than a small laptop for carrying around. If you are planning an upgrade to your PDA or mobile phone, definitely take a look at this device.
In comparison, my new Blackberry 8120 is an absolute nightmare. Any hints and tips about how to do the simplest things on this chocolate teapot will be gratefully received.
And finally, a correction to last week’s blog… Wrongly, I said that Opalis had been bought by CA. This is NOT the case. Opalis and CA have recently signed a partnership agreement, but no-one has been bought. I hope that clarifies the point.
And finally, finally (!), the IMS survey is still running. If you haven’t completed it yet, go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d. Many thanks.
Monday, 5 May 2008
Data Centre Automation – again
I blogged about data centre automation on the 25 March, but I forgot to say that it now has its own acronym – DCA (obviously). I mentioned that BMC had bought BladeLogic, but I didn’t mention that the price was $800 million. And since then, CA has bought Opalis Software Inc – an IT process automation specialist.
The reason behind the acquisitions and new product announcements is that software vendors can make a lot of money from automation software. And the reason for that is because companies running data centres want to save as much money as possible, and automation is a great way of doing that – even though it involves paying money to software vendors.
Good automation allows an organization to maintain the reliability of their data centres. It also allows all the processes running on the mainframe to proceed at least as efficiently as before. Lastly, it removes the possibility of operator error – whatever action is carried out is always to the same high standard.
In fact, as well as BladeLogic, BMC also bought a company called RealOps last summer. RealOps was an automation specialist. With Opalis being bought by CA, it seems likely that any smaller automation specialist company is going to feel itself alone at sea being circled by sharks – or larger software companies.
According to a recent Forrester report, Hewlett-Packard (who, as I mentioned previously, bought automation-specialists Opsware last summer) came out as market leader in the DCA space, with BladeLogic and BMC coming in second and third – although, of course, now they are a single company. Also according to this survey, CA came behind IBM – so the Opalis acquisition must be intended to push them up the rankings.
A data centre automation product has got to do far more than simply automate tasks previously performed by operators. We’re now expecting to see workload automation, process automation, provisioning automation, ITIL automation, disaster recovery automation, security automation, asset and capacity management automation, etc etc. If you think a process happens at your data centre, then you need software to automate it!
The DCA space looks like it is quite an exciting area to be in. And hopefully, as consumers, we can benefit from the efforts the software vendors are putting into being able to provide all-singing all-dancing products.
The reason behind the acquisitions and new product announcements is that software vendors can make a lot of money from automation software. And the reason for that is because companies running data centres want to save as much money as possible, and automation is a great way of doing that – even though it involves paying money to software vendors.
Good automation allows an organization to maintain the reliability of their data centres. It also allows all the processes running on the mainframe to proceed at least as efficiently as before. Lastly, it removes the possibility of operator error – whatever action is carried out is always to the same high standard.
In fact, as well as BladeLogic, BMC also bought a company called RealOps last summer. RealOps was an automation specialist. With Opalis being bought by CA, it seems likely that any smaller automation specialist company is going to feel itself alone at sea being circled by sharks – or larger software companies.
According to a recent Forrester report, Hewlett-Packard (who, as I mentioned previously, bought automation-specialists Opsware last summer) came out as market leader in the DCA space, with BladeLogic and BMC coming in second and third – although, of course, now they are a single company. Also according to this survey, CA came behind IBM – so the Opalis acquisition must be intended to push them up the rankings.
A data centre automation product has got to do far more than simply automate tasks previously performed by operators. We’re now expecting to see workload automation, process automation, provisioning automation, ITIL automation, disaster recovery automation, security automation, asset and capacity management automation, etc etc. If you think a process happens at your data centre, then you need software to automate it!
The DCA space looks like it is quite an exciting area to be in. And hopefully, as consumers, we can benefit from the efforts the software vendors are putting into being able to provide all-singing all-dancing products.
Monday, 28 April 2008
What is BPEL and should I distinguish between the music and the dancers?
Well, let’s answer the first part of the question posed in the title and see what BPEL is. The letters stand for Business Process Execution Language, and it is a language for specifying the behaviour of business processes based on Web services. Importantly, processes use only Web services to import and export functionality.
That all sounds fairly sensible – it’s a language to specify how business processes should execute, and it uses Web services, which are software systems supporting interoperable machine-to-machine interactions over a network. And, of course, WSDL (Web Services Description Language) is the machine-readable description of the service. And we’re all familiar with SOAP and WSDL etc these days.
But BPEL gets more complicated. These business processes come in two varieties – executable and abstract. So, definition time… An executable business process models the actual behaviour of a participant in a business interaction. An abstract business process may hide some of the concrete operational details – making it more descriptive. This is important for a real-life business model.
IBM and others developed BPEL4WS 1.1. The current standard (with the current naming convention) is WS-BPEL 2.0. In June last year, IBM and others published the BPEL4People and WS-HumanTask specifications, which describe how human interaction in BPEL processes can be implemented.
So what’s all this staff about "the music and the dancers"? Well, BPEL is an orchestration language, not a choreography language. It seems that an orchestration language specifies an execution process involving messages being exchanged with other systems – specifically, the message exchange sequence is controlled by the orchestration designer. A choreography specifies a protocol for peer-to-peer interactions.
Let me put this another way. Orchestration defines the flow of a process that involves distinct services and choreography defines the interaction between independently-defined processes. If you are writing a choreography, then there is WS-CDL – Choreography Description Language.
In truth, people are using orchestrations, but no-one is yet using choreography.
How did they get these names and what analogies were their creators thinking of? Well, if you think about an orchestra, although there are numerous players, they all follow the conductor. So an orchestration is more about centralized control. Now think of a stage full of dancers – they all have their parts of the performance but they do not have a conductor, they are in many ways on their own.
So, as a died-in-the-wool mainframer, why do you care about BPEL and dancers and orchestras? The answer is really all to do with SOA. If making your mainframe part of a distributed system is the way forward, and you don’t want a mixed bag of point solutions that work with a bit of your CICS system or your DB2 database, then you probably are looking for a simple single strategy. You’re also probably looking to future-proof your SOA development by adopting a recognized industry standard.
BPEL might just be able to help you achieve that.
Lastly, if you’re an IMS user, then please complete our IMS survey. You can find it at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d.
That all sounds fairly sensible – it’s a language to specify how business processes should execute, and it uses Web services, which are software systems supporting interoperable machine-to-machine interactions over a network. And, of course, WSDL (Web Services Description Language) is the machine-readable description of the service. And we’re all familiar with SOAP and WSDL etc these days.
But BPEL gets more complicated. These business processes come in two varieties – executable and abstract. So, definition time… An executable business process models the actual behaviour of a participant in a business interaction. An abstract business process may hide some of the concrete operational details – making it more descriptive. This is important for a real-life business model.
IBM and others developed BPEL4WS 1.1. The current standard (with the current naming convention) is WS-BPEL 2.0. In June last year, IBM and others published the BPEL4People and WS-HumanTask specifications, which describe how human interaction in BPEL processes can be implemented.
So what’s all this staff about "the music and the dancers"? Well, BPEL is an orchestration language, not a choreography language. It seems that an orchestration language specifies an execution process involving messages being exchanged with other systems – specifically, the message exchange sequence is controlled by the orchestration designer. A choreography specifies a protocol for peer-to-peer interactions.
Let me put this another way. Orchestration defines the flow of a process that involves distinct services and choreography defines the interaction between independently-defined processes. If you are writing a choreography, then there is WS-CDL – Choreography Description Language.
In truth, people are using orchestrations, but no-one is yet using choreography.
How did they get these names and what analogies were their creators thinking of? Well, if you think about an orchestra, although there are numerous players, they all follow the conductor. So an orchestration is more about centralized control. Now think of a stage full of dancers – they all have their parts of the performance but they do not have a conductor, they are in many ways on their own.
So, as a died-in-the-wool mainframer, why do you care about BPEL and dancers and orchestras? The answer is really all to do with SOA. If making your mainframe part of a distributed system is the way forward, and you don’t want a mixed bag of point solutions that work with a bit of your CICS system or your DB2 database, then you probably are looking for a simple single strategy. You’re also probably looking to future-proof your SOA development by adopting a recognized industry standard.
BPEL might just be able to help you achieve that.
Lastly, if you’re an IMS user, then please complete our IMS survey. You can find it at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d.
Monday, 21 April 2008
2 become 1
Am I talking about the Spice Girls 1996 Christmas mega-hit (the USA had to wait until July 1997, when it reached number 4 in the US charts)? No, obviously, I’m talking about IBM’s recent announcement that System i and System p have officially converged.
System i is still often thought of by its old old name of AS/400, and System p is still commonly called RS/6000. However, in Nashville at its COMMON user group meeting, IBM announced two standard configuration systems. These are the IBM POWER 520 Express and the IBM POWER 550 Express. So what’s the big deal? Well they can run AIX, Linux, or IBM i (formerly-known as i5/OS or OS/400).
Clearly this is another step in IBM’s not-very-secret-at-all Project ECLipz, in which their three different processor lines would eventually merge. This isn’t the first sign, you may recall the Power5 processor could run both System i and System p. The logic behind Project ECLipz is that it makes no sense financially for a single company to develop and maintain three separate CMOS and chipset architectures. In addition, there are the associated three separate hardware and support infrastructures. Why not have just one?
So, apart from coming out with a new name for OS/400 or i/OS (that’s the IBM i tag), what was actually announced? The 520 can ship with up to two 4.2GHz Power6 processors, and customers can activate one, two, or four cores on the systems. The 550 ships with two, four, six, or eight cores, meaning it can have up to four Power6 chips running at 3.5GHz or 4.2GHz. These are both low-end models.
Also announced was an i Edition Express for the BladeCenter S. Customers can slot the JS12 Express blade into the BladeCenter S chassis, allowing Power and x86 systems to be run in the same case.
Forgetting the new name for the System i software part, the real significance of the announcement is that we see another small step on the road towards convergence of IBM’s different systems. Cynics might say it will take a long time before System z, with all its major differences, can merge with the other two. However, it looks like those 2 (Systems i and p) will definitely become 1.
System i is still often thought of by its old old name of AS/400, and System p is still commonly called RS/6000. However, in Nashville at its COMMON user group meeting, IBM announced two standard configuration systems. These are the IBM POWER 520 Express and the IBM POWER 550 Express. So what’s the big deal? Well they can run AIX, Linux, or IBM i (formerly-known as i5/OS or OS/400).
Clearly this is another step in IBM’s not-very-secret-at-all Project ECLipz, in which their three different processor lines would eventually merge. This isn’t the first sign, you may recall the Power5 processor could run both System i and System p. The logic behind Project ECLipz is that it makes no sense financially for a single company to develop and maintain three separate CMOS and chipset architectures. In addition, there are the associated three separate hardware and support infrastructures. Why not have just one?
So, apart from coming out with a new name for OS/400 or i/OS (that’s the IBM i tag), what was actually announced? The 520 can ship with up to two 4.2GHz Power6 processors, and customers can activate one, two, or four cores on the systems. The 550 ships with two, four, six, or eight cores, meaning it can have up to four Power6 chips running at 3.5GHz or 4.2GHz. These are both low-end models.
Also announced was an i Edition Express for the BladeCenter S. Customers can slot the JS12 Express blade into the BladeCenter S chassis, allowing Power and x86 systems to be run in the same case.
Forgetting the new name for the System i software part, the real significance of the announcement is that we see another small step on the road towards convergence of IBM’s different systems. Cynics might say it will take a long time before System z, with all its major differences, can merge with the other two. However, it looks like those 2 (Systems i and p) will definitely become 1.
Monday, 14 April 2008
IMS is dead!?!?
I took part in an enterprise survey last week. The first question was to name companies that I thought were in the enterprise IT space. Of course, I trotted out names like IBM, CA, and BMC. When prompted for more I said DataDirect, NEON, Mackinney, William Data Systems, SDS, and Oracle. I would have moved on to high-end hardware suppliers, but I stopped – to see whether I had said enough. The second part of the survey was about Hewlett-Packard. Now if HP thinks it’s in the enterprise space, where does that put IBM and the other mainframe suppliers. Where does that put things like IMS?
Hewlett-Packard has been around for a long time, but I always think of them as the company that sells cheap printers and expensive ink cartridges. In truth, I’m actually writing this blog on an HP Pavilion laptop. In terms of positioning in the market place, I tend to put HP and Sun as mid-range players. I can remember when HP took over DEC, who at one time had been king of the mid-range. In fact, PDP11s were like the Volkswagon Beetle or Morris Minor of their day – they were still in use at many companies long after you would have expected them to have been replaced. I even worked on a DEC VAX machine (in the days when VAX was nothing to do with vacuuming the carpet!). I still remember the excitement in the press when Carly Fiorina became CEO – and when she left. Although I knew about their workstations and their OpenView software, I still thought of them as mid-range.
So if everyone else in the world sees HP as an enterprise player, where does that put IBM? Does this mean that IBM is now really little more than a niche player in the enterprise space? And if that is the case, where does it put specialized packages like IMS? Here’s the logic: only a part of the enterprise space is IBM’s, and only some of those IBM sites use IMS. Therefore the IMS part must be very small and probably shrinking to nothing over the next few years.
If you’re an IMS user, how does that make you feel? Well, I’m hoping that I’m completely wrong with everything I’ve just said about IMS. But I think it’s important that IMS users have a chance to have their say. I think it would be very useful to know what real IMS users are doing with their IMS. So, if you are an IMS users, why don’t you fill in the IMS survey at www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d. When the results are in, I’ll let you know whether IMS users think IMS is dead or not.
IMS users who haven’t already signed up may be interested in the Virtual IMS Connection user group at www.virtualims.com.
Hewlett-Packard has been around for a long time, but I always think of them as the company that sells cheap printers and expensive ink cartridges. In truth, I’m actually writing this blog on an HP Pavilion laptop. In terms of positioning in the market place, I tend to put HP and Sun as mid-range players. I can remember when HP took over DEC, who at one time had been king of the mid-range. In fact, PDP11s were like the Volkswagon Beetle or Morris Minor of their day – they were still in use at many companies long after you would have expected them to have been replaced. I even worked on a DEC VAX machine (in the days when VAX was nothing to do with vacuuming the carpet!). I still remember the excitement in the press when Carly Fiorina became CEO – and when she left. Although I knew about their workstations and their OpenView software, I still thought of them as mid-range.
So if everyone else in the world sees HP as an enterprise player, where does that put IBM? Does this mean that IBM is now really little more than a niche player in the enterprise space? And if that is the case, where does it put specialized packages like IMS? Here’s the logic: only a part of the enterprise space is IBM’s, and only some of those IBM sites use IMS. Therefore the IMS part must be very small and probably shrinking to nothing over the next few years.
If you’re an IMS user, how does that make you feel? Well, I’m hoping that I’m completely wrong with everything I’ve just said about IMS. But I think it’s important that IMS users have a chance to have their say. I think it would be very useful to know what real IMS users are doing with their IMS. So, if you are an IMS users, why don’t you fill in the IMS survey at www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MCSamiUsmkiBqD74szrX_2fA_3d_3d. When the results are in, I’ll let you know whether IMS users think IMS is dead or not.
IMS users who haven’t already signed up may be interested in the Virtual IMS Connection user group at www.virtualims.com.
Monday, 7 April 2008
IBM and extinction-level events
Last week I was suggesting that IBM mainframes, particularly the new z10, were, for all sorts of reasons, the best computing solution in town, and yet many people were making other choices. I was suggesting that if IBM didn’t do something they would find themselves as extinct as the dinosaurs they are so often compared to. And with dinosaurs ruling the Earth for 186 million years, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing!
So, despite IBM having the best product, many people are choosing an alternative option. What can IBM do about it? What are their choices to avoid becoming extinct?
IBM could decide to do nothing. This solution solidifies them in their current position. They can continue producing new hardware at regular intervals. They can continue upgrading their software. And, of course they can continue selling at very high prices to very big and very wealthy corporations.
IBM can continue with their SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture) developments. But while this makes bits of CICS programs available to Web browsers, it does nothing to generate more mainframe sales. It really just satisfies current mainframe users, who can argue against people wanting a change to Unix or Microsoft in order to have this kind of computing available.
The future looks bleak for IBM because they will only be selling to a diminishing number of companies. They don’t currently seem to have a strategy to suck in middle size VMware users from server farms.
What’s needed is a physically small box, perhaps running z/VM (as you know I’m a big VM fan, I’ve even written two books on the subject) that needs almost no tweaking once it’s first set up. This box should then run any operating system you like – Linux, Solaris, and, dare I say it, Windows. And it should run an incredibly large number of them. And it should cost almost nothing (to begin with).
This is a bad strategy because IBM will immediately lose all its small and some middle-sized mainframe users. Even large sites will be working out the cost-benefits.
It’s a good strategy because it will retain all its smaller customers who would have bought other products. It’s good because it will encourage sites using almost any other server to change to IBM. Having killed all the mainframe emulator companies, it will be able to do this.
IBM then has to bite the bullet of small revenues while other competing companies go out of business. Then, in perhaps 10 years time, this new-look IBM starts to raise its costs, or the costs of add-on speciality engines, and gradually goes back into mega-profit.
This mutation of IBM will allow it to continue to thrive long after the asteroid has hit the Earth and lumbering giants have turned into fossils.
Meanwhile in the real world, IMS professionals will be pleased to know that Tuesday 8 April at 10:30 CDT is when the next Virtual IMS Connection (www.virtualims.com) user group meeting takes place. The meeting is free to members (and signing up to become a member is also free) and contains part 2 of the talk by Bill Keene on IMS disaster recovery preparation.
So, despite IBM having the best product, many people are choosing an alternative option. What can IBM do about it? What are their choices to avoid becoming extinct?
IBM could decide to do nothing. This solution solidifies them in their current position. They can continue producing new hardware at regular intervals. They can continue upgrading their software. And, of course they can continue selling at very high prices to very big and very wealthy corporations.
IBM can continue with their SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture) developments. But while this makes bits of CICS programs available to Web browsers, it does nothing to generate more mainframe sales. It really just satisfies current mainframe users, who can argue against people wanting a change to Unix or Microsoft in order to have this kind of computing available.
The future looks bleak for IBM because they will only be selling to a diminishing number of companies. They don’t currently seem to have a strategy to suck in middle size VMware users from server farms.
What’s needed is a physically small box, perhaps running z/VM (as you know I’m a big VM fan, I’ve even written two books on the subject) that needs almost no tweaking once it’s first set up. This box should then run any operating system you like – Linux, Solaris, and, dare I say it, Windows. And it should run an incredibly large number of them. And it should cost almost nothing (to begin with).
This is a bad strategy because IBM will immediately lose all its small and some middle-sized mainframe users. Even large sites will be working out the cost-benefits.
It’s a good strategy because it will retain all its smaller customers who would have bought other products. It’s good because it will encourage sites using almost any other server to change to IBM. Having killed all the mainframe emulator companies, it will be able to do this.
IBM then has to bite the bullet of small revenues while other competing companies go out of business. Then, in perhaps 10 years time, this new-look IBM starts to raise its costs, or the costs of add-on speciality engines, and gradually goes back into mega-profit.
This mutation of IBM will allow it to continue to thrive long after the asteroid has hit the Earth and lumbering giants have turned into fossils.
Meanwhile in the real world, IMS professionals will be pleased to know that Tuesday 8 April at 10:30 CDT is when the next Virtual IMS Connection (www.virtualims.com) user group meeting takes place. The meeting is free to members (and signing up to become a member is also free) and contains part 2 of the talk by Bill Keene on IMS disaster recovery preparation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)