Any comments?

I thought the group might find the following interesting:

PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
By Joe Spurr, News Writer

Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs and
licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.

The decision to switch came about two years ago when officials, already
cognizant of high mainframe costs, began to realize the growth of their
company was beginning to conflict with the size of its shoes, so to speak.
But with stability a concern and the looming task of converting five million
lines of code, the pressure was on to make the right move.

"The challenge of rewriting everything -- it was a daunting task," said Mike
Grant, Simon & Schuster vice president of application development. "But we
needed to do something . We are running flat out on our machine right now.
We're almost 90% to 100% capacity all the time."

Mainframes have been around forever and know how to get things done their
own way, but, especially for smaller companies, the elegance that makes them
useful can also be unwieldy to upkeep.

More on mainframes
Integration specialists ride mainframe migration wave

Graying workforce endangers your mainframes

Advantages of the data center's elder statesman -- stability, the ability to
scale and flex in the face of server sprawl and new workloads -- can be
offset by premium hardware costs. Complicated architecture that goes back 20
years, combined with a skills base in decline, also means potentially high
labor expenses.

Grant said he was surfing for answers when he stumbled across
Tokyo-headquartered Fujitsu Software Corp., a specialist in assisting
migrations like CICS applications to .NET and mainframe batch applications
to Windows.

The latter was a crucial difference when proofs of concept were drawn and
discussed with both Fujitsu and U.K.-based Micro Focus Ltd., a similar
migration outfit, Grant said.

"We were very impressed with both, but the problem we saw with Micro
Focus -- which may have since changed -- was a lot of emulation software,"
Grant said. "We wanted to standardize our .NET environment, and the Fujitsu
model more closely aligned with our vision, in terms of running Visual
Studio and having it play well with VB [Visual Basic] and C#."

After recently transferring over its royalty system -- and working with
India-based Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. to convert its DB2 to SQL
server -- the final hulking shift comes soon for Simon & Schuster -- moving
its main order processing system. But the true test will come late summer, a
traditional season of frenzy that will test both nerves and networks as
publishers push to move product in time for schools reopening.

"Until then, we'll still be kind of nervous -- last year our mainframe was
so backed up that often systems weren't coming up until 10 the next
morning," Grant said. "But right now we're seeing jobs perform so much
better. We are really seeing some performance gains, we've been pleased, and
all the vendors are very confident."

Indeed, Andrew Mackenzie, strategic alliance manager for Fujitsu Software,
sees no gray in the environment.

"The thing about migrations is you're either a hero or a goat," Mackenzie
said. "With mission-critical apps, it can be very scary to turn off the
mainframe. But five years ago there was a lot more risk. There's been
relentless performance gains in microprocessors. It comes down to if I'm the
CIO who's got this thing that's sucking up 60% of my budget -- you're either
going to migrate or drown."

IT research firm Gartner Inc. recently predicted 80% of today's smaller
mainframe environments will move away by 2010. And though the sentiment of
that forecast is nothing new -- bashing mainframes is practically a pastime
in some circles. Detractors today predict doom in the face of the system's
recent resurgence, exemplified by double-digit revenue gains since 2003 of
the IBM's zSeries.

"If someone hasn't looked at a mainframe in a while, they should look
again," said zSeries product director Collette Martin. "There's an awful lot
of flexibility. And for the customers who are very small, with older
mainframes, those who are struggling in that respect but looking for a value
proposition to move forward, it is considerably less expensive to run
today's mainframes."


No, I didn't write it... :-) (The Author's name is on the byline)

I'm still backing 2015 for the end of COBOL... :-)

Pete.

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> I thought the group might find the following interesting:
>
> PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
> By Joe Spurr, News Writer
>
> Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs an
d
> licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
> The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
> changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
> ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.
>
[...]

Well, we are seeing a lot of interest in our Java-based client-server
app from traditional mainframe shops.  Many of these shops want to
minimize any further COBOL development, or control it in a manner more
conducive to implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley.

However, the usual telcos and banks we talk with are not planning this
sort of drastic change.  They would rather find solutions that bridge
the mainframe and client-server world.

"void * clvrmnky()" wrote:
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote: 
>
> Well, we are seeing a lot of interest in our Java-based client-server
> app from traditional mainframe shops.

>"Many of these shops want to
> minimize any further COBOL development, or control it in a manner more
> conducive to implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley".
>

This is one of those all-too-common statements that make no sense at
all.  What on earth has the language used got to do with Sarbox?  Isn't
the act supposed to mandate accountability?  Does it state that any
language is better than others?  How is control of COBOL source or use
any different from any other language's when it comes to being
"conducive to implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley"?

Please explain!

PL

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs an
d
> licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
> The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
> changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
> ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.

Those ES7000 servers rock!  It's basically their mainframe-sized Intel
platform.  I believe they support up to 16 processors in one box (it may
be 32 processors by now).

They're very  - and, I believe they also run Unisys's A-series (LX)
operating system.  For those folks, they can get cheaper hardware *and*
no conversion...  :)

(Us 9-bit 2200 (IX) folks are out of luck on those - although the new
Dorado series boxes are very quick.  I saw our production machine
running at 1,600 MIPS this w!  (Of course, I also saw them adjust the
configuration down to 1,200...))

They haven't left us out in the cold, though.  Now, instead of paying
for the capability of the hardware, we pay for the MIPS we actually use.
It's significantly cheaper, while allowing us to have the power on
demand if we need it.  I'm waiting for us to get that on our development
boxes, so we can do system-wide rebuilds in an hour.  (We did it in
about an hour and a half on a 150 MIP machine - but on our normal
development machine, it takes about 8 hours, usually done overnight.)

More than you ever wanted to know about Unisys, probably...  :)  I just
had to give props to the ES7000's - I wish I could get one for my house!
(although I have no idea what I'd do with it...  They run Linux too -
maybe that would be my terminal server!)

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

LX-i wrote:

Daniel,

For first time ever, just read your byline in your footer. Still we
don't want to get into that all over again do we :-)

Patience this end - let's see what observations you come back with about
the Islamic world in terms of their concept of justice, democracy and
religion when you have finished your tour of duty. I'm going to forecast
you will probably be cynical and might use words like "Bewilderment",
"Exasperation" etc.

Jimmy

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I thought the group might find the following interesting:
>
> PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
> By Joe Spurr, News Writer
>
> Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs an
d
> licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
> The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
> changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
> ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.
>
Anyone who has *anything* important running on their computers...
should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
company.


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

Charles Richmond wrote:
> Anyone who has *anything* important running on their computers...
> should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
> should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
> company.
>

Interestingly, more people have placed their trust in the reliability of
Micros~1 than in any other company. Ever.

There was a time, not so very long ago, that on the tolling of the hour by
Big Ben, the British Ensign was being raised, at dawn, in some far-flung
part of the Empire.

Now, with every tick of the atomic clock at the National Bureau of
Standards, Micros~1 Windows is being booted thousands of times. Micros~1 IS
the empire of our age.

You can, if you want, be a modern-day Sepoy, or a Boxer, or a Boer, or a
Zulu, or even a Napolean. Enjoy.

LX-i wrote:

> IMO, though, that's the beauty of that quote.  It's doesn't even attempt
> to get into "all that" - it only questions the rationality of two
> comparative viewpoints.  And, there's not an answer - some might feel
> that the first man is less rational.

Well I think that it is irrational to think that there are only two
viewpoints, but then religionists typically do try to create a
dichotomy where none exists in an attempt to claim, or at least imply,
that if one is not true then the other must be.

> (And note, too - it's not ridiculing the lack of belief in (a) God, just
> inquiring as to the rationality of being *offended* by a deity that
> someone doesn't believe exists.)

Are you offended by the hundreds of deities that you don't believe in ?

Are you offended by Rastas; Scientoloist Thetans; Hindu's Brahma,
Vishnu, Shiva and the rest; the Canaanite Pantheon; Shintu Gods; and
the others ?

Actually, what I am offended by is the willfull ignorance of some
religionists: flat earthers, geocentralists,  ... ummm, .. etc.

> Micros~1 Windows is being booted thousands of times

Yeah, I find that I have to boot it thousands of times, too.      ;-)

In 2000 it was discovered that Win95, 98 and ME would lock up after
being up for exactly 39 days and some hours, being an integer roll over
problem. The joke was that it took 5 years before anyone had managed to
keep one up that long without having to reboot.

HeyBub wrote:
>
> Charles Richmond wrote: 
>
> Interestingly, more people have placed their trust in the reliability of
> Micros~1 than in any other company. Ever.
>
And I see them paying the price *every* day. When viruses go around,
whole city governments in the U.S. shut down. Mi$uck's "security" is
like a sieve: most anything can get through with little effort.
>
> There was a time, not so very long ago, that on the tolling of the hour by
> Big Ben, the British Ensign was being raised, at dawn, in some far-flung
> part of the Empire.
>
> Now, with every tick of the atomic clock at the National Bureau of
> Standards, Micros~1 Windows is being booted thousands of times. Micros~1 I
S
> the empire of our age.
>
Yes, I was forced to work on Mi$uck Windows before. We had to reboot
*several* times a day at my place of employment. So I guess that boosts
the Mi$uck number of daily boots.  ;-)  One of the guys who was running
Windows NT had to *re-install* his system a couple of times a month. It
took him *all* afternoon to accomplish a re-install.
>
> You can, if you want, be a modern-day Sepoy, or a Boxer, or a Boer, or a
> Zulu, or even a Napolean. Enjoy.
>
I'm *not* sure what you mean here...but I'm sticking with my Mac and
Linux boxes thank you very much.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond     richmond at plano dot net   |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+