Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM's Newest Mainframe Is All Linux

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the new-great-taste dept.

Red Hat Software 251

dcblogs writes "IBM has released a new mainframe server that doesn't include its z/OS operating system. This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse. The system is packaged with mainframe management and virtualization tools. The minimum processor configuration uses two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux. IBM wants to go after large multicore x86 Linux servers and believes the $212,000 entry price can do it."

cancel ×

251 comments

I guess... (5, Funny)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384278)

I guess they need a blue penguin.

Re:I guess... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384330)

Being the linux mascot, tux has blue balls. Also, he smells like shit.

Re:I guess... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384962)

Well so does Ballmer, and it hasn't stopped you lovin' him.

Re:I guess... (2, Informative)

lsllll (830002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384396)

This is all okay with me, as long as they don't use JCL. Ayyy I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360, but then again they never thought JCL and didn't have any books on it, which is probably why I hated it.

Re:I guess... (4, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384504)

This is all okay with me, as long as they don't use JCL. Ayyy I hated that shit when learning assembler on the 360, but then again they never thought JCL and didn't have any books on it, which is probably why I hated it.

IEBGENR! CORGZ! (runs after IsIIII shouting DASD Acronyms). RACF!!

Ok, ok, it's your lawn.

Re:I guess... (1)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384542)

The FORTRAN teacher gave us JCL statements as black magic, to be used as directed, without changes. Later I found books and learned all that there is worth knowing. DD rules :-)

But they only buy it to put a pirate windows on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385780)

That's what all linux gear is bought for, to put windows on. !!

Re:I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384850)

Presumably you are talking about OS (later MVS) JCL. As it is an abbreviation for Job Control Language, JCL was not specific to that OS. There was IBM DOS JCL, which was considerably simpler and the JCLs for non-IBM OSes were quite different - and often much easier to program.

A little history is required here, methinks.

Re:I guess... (3, Informative)

TempestRose (1187397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385044)

Hmm, IBM Publication GX20-1850-7 would help a little for the 370. ( Or the latest revision.... ) There must be a similar reference for the 360, no?

Re:I guess... (1)

APL bigot (606126) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385716)

Too bad; I learned on VM/CMS. Can't beat having your own virtual machine. Didn't have to deal with JCL and the MVS stuff. Only system I liked as much as Amiga OS. Customers loved VM, so of course the suits tried to kill it and champion MVS. Meh.

Yeah, yeah you responding to this post; get off my lawn!

HCP9010W

Re:I guess... (1)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385782)

You didn't see the IBM JCL manual????? You poor so and so.... your whole brain must have been all like

//SYSIN DD DUMMY

Re:I guess... (1)

goga_russian (544604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384438)

we in Russia make penguin drink, then it turn blue. then we load Alt Linux on it.

Re:I guess... (1)

ShinmaWa (449201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384626)

Actually, IBM has had a blue penguin for a long time. (Okay, the tux is blue at least)

http://ifup.org/images/tux-genetic.png [ifup.org]

Re:I guess... (4, Funny)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384656)

I'm a PC, and Fedora 12 was my idea.

Re:I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385058)

Those 'I'm a PC' commercials really make me angry. Every time I see one I find myself yelling at the TV that I'm a PC that KNOWS BETTER than to run windows!

Oh Yeah! (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385088)

I see those Windows commercials, and I just want to say "Well I'm Ken Thompson, and UNIX was my idea."

Yes, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384290)

...could you imagine a beowulf cluster of...

...bear vaginas?

Neither could I.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384388)

I lol'ed at the retarded moderators.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384452)

The sad fact is that there will be at least one beowulf cluster post even after that post I made^W^W...uh, I mean was made by not me posting anonymously because they were too impatient to log in.

*BSD is Dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384296)



It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Year 2009 is the year of... (5, Funny)

Wingman 5 (551897) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384304)

...Linux on the mainframe!

An in-house cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384336)

Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.

Re:An in-house cloud. (4, Funny)

rgbscan (321794) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384372)

Hmmm... Captive Cloud Computing? Has a nice marketing ring to it. I better hurry and trademark that!

Re:An in-house cloud. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384686)

Yes, please do hurry. Also, while you are at it - trademark "cloud seeding" (the process of giving out an eval server to get people to buy more for their captive cloud), "cloud burst" (what happens when your cloud runneth over), "every cloud has a silver lining" (profit!), "cloud cover" (your backup plan), and "cloud nines" (the number of 9's of reliability you have managed to achieve).

Re:An in-house cloud. (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385370)

You have no chance against Chinese, with their widely practiced cloud dispersion methods.

Re:An in-house cloud. (5, Interesting)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384486)

Now maybe all the companies out there who are thinking of wasting money on cloud computing can just buy one of these, and basically have their own in-house cloud.

Private cloud is flavour of the month it seems. A recent (as in "last month") release from joint venture ACADIA [storagenewsletter.com] (a Cisco+EMC+VMWare+Intel lash-up) shows that packaged private "Cloud" back end server offerings are at least seen as a way people will go.

I think it's smart packaging myself, four-cab VM building block, just add servers and away you go. And since you're just providing a VM environment, you're not limited in your underlying OS choices. Linux is a good way to go there.

~Although the ACADIA system is clearly superior to the IBM offering because (see above link) it can "accelerate customers' ability to increase business agility through greater IT infrastructure flexibility"./~ Gaaaahh!

Re:An in-house cloud. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384500)

If your using linux, why bother with vmware at all?

Just use openvz and get better performance and lower cost. Full virtualization is only worth bothering with if you are stuck running windows as well.

Re:An in-house cloud. (4, Interesting)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384540)

If your using linux, why bother with vmware at all?

It's not the environment itself, it's the support stuff. How to manage load balancing a few dozen or even a few hundred servers, what to do with the virtual images you end up with (lots of them. Dedup helps a lot). Server on-boarding VM utilities. Patch management. And do be careful with those DHCP servers, you don't want duplicate address tables.

It's not just running an OS on top of an OS any more. You gotta manage these virtual servers, and that's where people are willing to pay the extra money.

Re:An in-house cloud. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384556)

The load balancing should be pretty easy to script, openvz does live-migrate.The rest seem pretty similar and KSM adds memory deduplication to the kernel so openvz will support that pretty soon.

To me 99% of this stuff seems to be for places that want to hire total dolts and pay somebody else to make it easy for the dolts.

Re:An in-house cloud. (4, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384710)

To me 99% of this stuff seems to be for places that want to hire total dolts and pay somebody else to make it easy for the dolts.

That's not entirely fair. Sometimes the smartest thing you can do is buy something that already works, not something you have to script to get to work. Boxes you can plug into place. The place for the scripting you're describing is in development. You write a script that works, is flexible and efficient - and then get someone in marketing to put a wrapper around it to convince the buyers it's industry practice. That's what they're doing, anyway.

As good as your solution may be (and I've worn those shoes before myself) you'll be outpointed by the buyers who want it all in a bag taped to the cabinet.

After it's all in place then scripting expertise is needed to keep things working when things need to be changed. Trust me, you don't want a dolt for a sysadmin. I'd rather hire a BOFH [theregister.co.uk] than do that (just remember to keep your own spare key).

Re:An in-house cloud. (3, Interesting)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385268)

I attended the "Red Hat Virtual Experience" today; their offering seems to have a leg up on the ESX solution. Load balancing is only one of the features. Patch management can be accomplished through Red Hat's web interface, where you build templates and install companywide as desired. I'm getting ready to demo it on our blades to see how it compares. Have you taken a look at it?

Re:An in-house cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384890)

your != you're

fucking retard

Re:An in-house cloud. (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385024)

I wonder what the people pushing this terminology are smoking to prodcue their own private cloud.
Either that or it's well intentioned subversion to get those tricked by the "cloud" salesfolk back on track.

Kinda like a fart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384538)

Isn't that basically what it is?

x86 Linux Server... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384384)

$212 sounds like a reasonable price for an x86 Linux server, at least as an entry level.

Just one question: What's a "000 entry price"?

At least we don't have to (2)

bsharp8256 (1372285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384398)

At least we don't have to ask if it runs Linux.

Stocking stuffer (5, Funny)

ewg (158266) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384418)

At $212,000, a great stocking-stuffer for the kernel hacker who has everything.

Re:Stocking stuffer (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384790)

Where are the pictures? I want my hardware porn...

Mainframe or Server? (4, Interesting)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384424)

"IBM has released a new mainframe server that doesn't include its z/OS operating system. This Enterprise Linux Server line supports Red Hat or Suse."

There is a big difference between a mainframe and a high-end server. Why would someone buy a mainframe if they didn't need the reliability and special features of a mainframe? Aren't these really the selling points of the Z-series over the P-series, for example? Usually the P-series and I-series systems are also touted for virtualization, and tend to be less expensive. Can someone distinguish the big difference between these lines now? Traditionally, from what I remember, P-series was AIX, I-Series was AS/400, and Z-series was z/OS and other mainframe OS's. Of course, IBM has been offering Linux on all of them for quite awhile now.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (3, Informative)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384466)

Correct:
  pSeries is the new name for the previous RS/6000 AIX boxes,
  iSeries is the new name for the previous AS/400 boxes that ran OS/400,
  and zSeries is the new name for the previous mainframe line.

the p and i boxes now run pretty much the same hardware, and both have supported Linux for some time. The iSeries has excellent virtual machine support (called "partitioning" in iSeries parlance) and can run Linux instances natively or on an installed Intel-class processor board that shares system memory and disk (DASD).

As to why you might want to run Linux on mainframe-class hardware, reliability and scalability come to mind.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (2, Interesting)

the_womble (580291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385064)

The fact that so many people make sense of the new names by thinking of them in terms of the old suggests that this was not a great piece of branding. Why did anyone think "we have three distinct product lines with different features and strong brand images within our market, so lets give them all new names, all three of which are nearly the same"

Re:Mainframe or Server? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385266)

Probably an effort to gain new customers who did not already have experience with IBM products. "iSeries" sounds a lot more inviting than "AS/400" when you are presenting to a bunch of managers.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (1)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385318)

RS/6000? Ah, the memories. Boy they were a pain to get up and running.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (2, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384482)

I thought phasing out the other OSes in favour of Linux was IBM's long term plan? Something about allowing their customers to target a single OS and letting them mix and match (IBM's) hardware.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (4, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384614)

I think in the future it may be easier to find people who know Linux than people who know IBM proprietary mainframe operating systems. The code base will end up larger. IBM's mainframe hardware is definitely more a high-spec, high-reliability set of choices than the server base you'll typically see in your smaller DC's. But if they want their high-end hardware presence to continue to grow, they'll need people to drive them. And of course, people in universities are absolutely flocking to zOS classes aren't they? Umm... right, they're not. Linux makes sense.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (1)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385172)

Are there Linux classes in Universities? CS students may use Linux extensively but they hardly have classes on particular OSes. They do usually have at least one Operating Systems class where they study the theory of OS design and may implement parts of an OS or an entire basic OS depending on the lab schedule. That said, I bet the number of undergrad students studying CS intensive majors in the USA who have used zOS at all outside of work experience is countable, while most of them have probably used Linux even before attending college.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385550)

That said, I bet the number of undergrad students studying CS intensive majors in the USA who have used zOS at all outside of work experience is countable

I would certainly hope so! If there are uncountably many CS majors in the USA the job market is going to be terrible in a few years.

Re:Mainframe or Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385770)

Pretty obvious, everyone is a download away from linux when on the other hand the 3 day training course IBM offers costs about 1600 euro where I live and I rather spend that money on crack

Re:Mainframe or Server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384572)

No - You can do very large scale virtualization with a zSeries mainframe packed with IFLs and running multiple z/VM LPARs.

Where you start to run into dead-ends is on-boarding former distributed users to virtualized servers. I have seen the following problems:
1) "This is my box and I can do whatever I want with it." The problem is that you are in a shared environment and your weird run-away processes can affect other users.
2) Shitty programming that has been solved in the past by throwing cheap distributed hardware at the problem. Often, throwing more hardware at a lousy program is cheaper than hiring a good programmer to plug the holes/re-design. This isn't the case on the mainframe, where hardware costs more than a Manhattan brownstone.
3) Mainframe tech staff who think they are doing you a favor by letting you run an application on the mainframe (also closely related the common attitude by "system programmers" (mainframe tech-support) that change is bad). "It's my way or the highway."
4) "I want to run KDE because I don't know any bash commands." Sorry, have you ever seen the overhead to have a desktop service idling (or worse).
5) No matter how IBM tries to spin it, those z10s will not do that same work that you get on an Intel box (and they sure as hell won't do it for the price).

Screensaver? (5, Funny)

kregg (1619907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384494)

What screensavers come with it, can I add my own?

Re:Screensaver? (5, Funny)

Randwulf (997659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384558)

I hear there are some great ones on Gnome-Look.

Re:Screensaver? (1, Funny)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384600)

Just make sure you don't get them from gnome-look.org. If you do, go over the source with a fine-tooth comb first.

I'd rather run Folding@Home, SETI@Home, and GIMPS in the background.

Re:Screensaver? (4, Funny)

Degrees (220395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384974)

So I was installing SuSE on our new z/OS mainframe (to a virtual machine guest to be specific), and the list of packages being installed was scrolling by: gstreamer.s390

And I'm thinking to myself "who, on God's Green Earth, had the job of porting audio to an EBCDIC based mainframe?" Talk about bizarro world....

But then I thought sure, it may not be used much; but when it does, it could launch 3,840 streams at 130 decibel. It's a Beowulf cluster of Rick Astley in a single box! And THAT is all worth it.

Re:Screensaver? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385120)

::sigh::

Saying z/OS mainframe is the same as saying Windows PC. You are describing an operating system as well as the hardware it's running on.

The processor itself is called System z.

z/OS is an operating system. This is the one with all the JCL and batch stuff.

z/VM is an operating system. This is the one that does all the virtualization stuff, and while not quite the original virtual environment, z/VM started out as CP/67 in the mid 60's.

Re:Screensaver? (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385352)

And how many people are going to know that?

Re:Screensaver? (2, Funny)

kregg (1619907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385128)

I don't mind contributing my PC resources to that, RickAstley@Home anyone?

Re:Screensaver? (1)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385802)

And why would EBCDIC make audio any harder to implement than on an ASCII or UNICODE based OS/machine?

That's cool and all... (3, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384550)

but but but, will it run Windows?

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384680)

but but but, will it run Windows?

No doubt it will run Windows quite well, from inside a VM.

Re:That's cool and all... (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385748)

Windows for PPC64 is finally available?

Re:That's cool and all... (3, Funny)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385116)

No. Doesn't support enough RAM.

Grammar (3, Insightful)

SupplyMission (1005737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384554)

"Its minimum processor configuration are two specialty mainframe processors designed for Linux."

What the fuck kind of grammar is that?

Re:Grammar (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384584)

Poor?
Bad?
Modern?

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384624)

Goddamn piss-fucking-poor grammar is what it is. But let them off the hook for now... there are many worse. First we have to kill off the bloggers.

Re:Grammar (2, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384692)

I like your idea, and think it would make an excellent topic for my next blog post. Once it's done I'll be sure to tweet the URL to you. Maybe I'll ask my boss to consider buying one of these IBM machines to host the blog; I'm certain my traffic is going to go through the roof!

Re:Grammar (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384740)

u sir r a fucking nigger

Re:Grammar (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384980)

the niggers, the jews, and the fags too

Re:Grammar (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384712)

Post-modern? It's modern, for slashdot posts!

Re:Grammar (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384706)

The kind slashdot editors like?

Re:Grammar (1)

Chelmet (1273754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384746)

Are you so sure its wrong? It may be slightly ambiguous, but the meaning of the sentence could be that you require both.

"For a bike to be a bike, the minimum configuration is two wheels". What's wrong with this sentence? Perhaps the mainframe requires both?

Re:Grammar (1)

Chelmet (1273754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384766)

Apologies. I thought your quote contained the amendment - I agree with you.

Re:Grammar (2, Funny)

Alegery (1018890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384756)

Postfix.

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384786)

What the fuck kind of grammar is that?

Geez, it's only a typo, don't have a heart attock.

Re:Grammar (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384912)

A typo (typographical error) would be an accidental mis-spelling, such as having started this sentence "A type...", or, perhaps, reversing the relative positions of two words.

This was the apparently deliberate choice of a verb and/or a subject which did not agree with one another in number. An error of grammar and usage, not a slip of the fingers as they fly on the keyboard.

Re:Grammar (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384848)

Never mind the grammar (I can hardly believe that I'm saying that), I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s). When did it get to be the other way around?

Re:Grammar (4, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384902)

I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s). When did it get to be the other way around?

When it became easier to design a new processor than to design a new OS (and port all apps onto it.)

Re:Grammar (5, Informative)

SEE (7681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385040)

Never mind the grammar (I can hardly believe that I'm saying that), I thought that operating systems were designed to work with the processor(s). When did it get to be the other way around?

Lots of apps for IBM mainframes are per-processor licensed. This caused a problem for IBM in trying to sell mainframes to run hybrid workloads; the customer would say, "But those extra processors to run Apache on Linux are costing me money in licensing fees on my mainframe apps. It's cheaper for me to buy a smaller mainframe and a bunch of PCs."

So IBM put together a bunch of processors, hardware-identical with normal mainframe processors, but including extra microcode that limits them to running Java/XML (z Application Assist Processor) or Linux (the Integrated Facility for Linux). These units don't count as processors for purposes of licensing mainframe apps, since they can't run mainframe apps.

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384924)

What the fuck kind of grammar are that?

Re:Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384982)

Processor configuration is singular

Penguin computing power at its finest. (0)

The Altruist (1448701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384574)

I want to see it play Nethack.

Can't wait to see the support (0, Troll)

drachenfyre (550754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384670)

I've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM. It's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it (Or at this point, we'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded). We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.

I wouldn't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384770)

In 8 years, I have had nothing but *excellent* support from IBM. Just sayin, is all...

Re:Can't wait to see the support (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384866)

IBM sucks. I know, I work for them. If your standard is a help desk staffed by untrained idiots, server support coming from Indians who barely speak english and could care less about anything other than their ticket count, and a consistent effort to make every issue a money issue, then yes, you probably get "excellent" support. I came to IBM in an outsourcing agreement. Before the outsourcing, the IT staff cared about the environment we managed. We wanted things to be done right, and took pride in the work we did. Now, only a skeleton crew of the original employees remain and the rest have been replaced by offshore staff, all at the direction of IBM's upper management determined to put the company and their customers into the poor house while pocketing fat bonuses and exercising stock options funded by the blood of their employees.

Sam P thinks that offshoring is so wonderful, and offers his employees an opportunity to work in "developing" countries for the "prevailing local wage". If he thinks it's so great, then he should move his fat prick ass out of his comfy house(s) and live there himself. No one in the US would miss him. He could take his fudgepacker buddy Bob Moffat with him and they could steal from the locals to pass the time.

Now there will undoubtedly be several who respond that I'm just bitter. They will make comments that I'm just a spoiled American, upset that the cheap labor from other geographies is threatening my lifestyle. And to all of them, from the bottom of my heart, FUCK YOU.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385472)

FUCK YOU TOO.

In the 80's, when India was a closed/socialist economy, all the developed countries were banging on our door (some directly, some through IMF, World Bank et al.,) to open up our markets. And the local industrialists were pressuring the government not to open up because they were afraid all the multi-nationals would come and put their protected businesses out of business. Finally, India had to do it out of desperation. Now Indian companies and peoples have learnt the game and found the niches where they can make money and now you guys bitch. Yeah, globalization was all good when it's just you make goods and your businesses shove goods on developing countries, but when they learn the game and beat you with their advantages, it's a bitch. It's a two-way street, dude! Learn to live with it, for you have no choice. If every country went back to their protectionist regimes, the american companies would not survive, for their markets are saturated and there is no growth. They depend on the developing countries' markets for growth.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384810)

You should get the IBM DS3200, I hear it's way better.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (1)

p5 (102346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384860)

We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.

You know India has a different timezone than the US right?

Re:Can't wait to see the support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30384874)

I worked support for IBM, in support you can get away with ignoring a customer as long as you want, if you claim you contacted them. And you can claim a contact, by sending an email saying you hadn't heard from them. But if you call and can get to a manager, or go through sales you can usually get things resolved pretty quickly.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (1)

cheap.computer (1036494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384892)

You get what you pay for....

Re:Can't wait to see the support (4, Interesting)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384950)

Um, in 5.5 months, you've had 15 emails? 5.5 months is about 24 weeks or 120 business days; what are you doing only sending email every week and a half?

I had an open software case with HP on an AlphaServer/TruCluster issue that lasted a little over a year. I think I sent over 200 email messages about that case (and there were other people involved as well). We had weekly conference call updates, as well as several meetings with various combinations of HP sales, support, engineers, and managers (many from out of state) in our office. Yeah, it sucked, but part of my job as system administrator is to stay on top of our vendors to make sure they are holding up their end of our support contracts. We aren't any big HP or AlphaServer customer (this was a cluster of two ES40s and represented 2/3 of our total installed base of Alphas, and we didn't have any other HP stuff at all), but we kept on them so they knew they had to deliver.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385010)

I absolutely loathe IBM as well.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385074)

I've got an IBM DS300 Fiber SAN with 4 hour support from IBM. It's been broken for 5 1/2 months now while we try to get IBM to fix it (Or at this point, we'd just be happy for the maintenance contract fee to be refunded). We've had about 15+ emails, half the time claiming we haven't responded to them yet and therefore we are the cause of the delay, yet quoting our reply in their message back saying we haven't responded.

I wouldn't buy another piece of IBM server equipment if you held a gun to my head.

Storage May not be IBM's strong point, which may be why they brought in the N series re-branded NetApp hardware/software for their higher end storage. I'm pretty sure support for their mainframe systems is exceptionally different from their cheap SAN hardware though. Our SystemX servers run great and I have never had a problem with part's replacements on our 4 hour contracts.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (4, Interesting)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385142)

I claim BS.

1. You're claiming you wouldn't buy another piece of "IBM server equipment" yet you're complaining about the lowest end disk drive array (really just a shelf) they make.
2. You have no idea what a DS300 is. You claim it's a Fibre SAN device. However, the DS300 is an iSCSI device with RJ45 GigE ports. The DS400 is fibrechannel attached.

You could have had that shelf RMA'd 10x by now. How about picking up the phone? You do have one of those don't you?

Try calling 1-800-IBM-FAST next time.

Re:Can't wait to see the support (4, Insightful)

terjeber (856226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385598)

I call BS. Perhaps incompetence on your part. 15+ emails? In 6 months? Yeah, that is incompetent. A sysadmin who has a serious problem and only sends 15 emails to the supplier in half a year deserves to be on his ass in the street, no severance.

BTW, the problem with your DS300 Fiber SAN is easy to identify. You are trying to use an iSCSI device as a Fiber SAN device. THAT WON'T WORK.

I would want to hack one of those old beats (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384778)

Question is: Where can I find them? I wonder how MythTV with trans-coding shows and all the rest would run on them. Any ideas on where to find old p- or z- series mainframes?

Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of those? (-1, Redundant)

plopez (54068) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384808)

It had to be said.

And yes, I am aware it is an absurd statement about mainframes since they have hardware as well as software virtualization capabilities.

Yeah, but... (0, Redundant)

evil_aar0n (1001515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385092)

Yeah, but does it run Solaris?

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385520)

Does anybody run Solaris on ANYTHING?

USS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385192)

Couldn't you get the same thing by running USS (Unix System Services) under Z/OS?

Re: IBM's Newest Mainframe Is All Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385334)

Honestly... what ELSE should it be running? Windows?

Slashdot has become retarded...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...