Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
The Eternal Mainframe (2013) (winestockwebdesign.com)
55 points by winestock 6 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 12 comments



It's not paying by the hour that was the problem, it was the huge capex and million dollar service contracts that made people want freedom. In that sense, cloud is the opposite of mainframe: instead of, "Here, spend a million dollars and get locked into a service contract," it's, "Here, spend $0 up front and just pay for usage, then leave whenever you want."


To be fare, $0 up front and pay for usage used to be called "time sharing," in which the mainframe you buy time on is located on someone else's premises.

Only large and deep-pocketed users opted to lease a mainframe for their exclusive, local, use.


"Time sharing" is different from "pay for usage".

"Time sharing" is "pay X per month and use up to Y hours".

"Pay per usage" is "pay X per hour of usage, no minimum requirements".

In a time-share it can be very hard to break out of the contract.


So in a sense "reserved instances" are more like time sharing then.


Yes, far more flexible, but in some sense yes.

The key difference between cloud and the traditional mainframe model is the decoupling between usage and the assets.

Time sharing is buying a share of an asset. Reserved instances is pre-commiting to computing utilization.


> It's not paying by the hour that was the problem, it was the huge capex and million dollar service contracts that made people want freedom. In that sense, cloud is the opposite of mainframe:

Actually, it was identical according to you description. Today, there is the decision of on-prem vs of remote computing, which was the same decision then.

> instead of, "Here, spend a million dollars and get locked into a service contract," it's, "Here, spend $0 up front and just pay for usage, then leave whenever you want."

The huge capex and million dollar service contracts still exist today, for example. There have been articles posted here on HN about companies that moved to the cloud for savings, grew their business, and eventually left their cloud provider due to high costs.


> Actually, it was identical according to you description. Today, there is the decision of on-prem vs of remote computing, which was the same decision then.

No, it wasn't the same decision. With cloud I can use as much or as little cloud resources as I'd like, and I only pay for what I use. Back in the day, remote computing was not like that.

> The huge capex and million dollar service contracts still exist today, for example.

Right, that's exactly what I was saying. Cloud offers an alternative to huge capex, which is the biggest drawback of mainframes, not counting the fact mainframes are difficult to second-source.


There have been articles posted here on HN about companies that moved to the cloud for savings, grew their business, and eventually left their cloud provider due to high costs.

I've never been in a position to find out the hard way, but that's how "the cloud" always struck me. "Have access to the computing power of a multimillion dollar mainframe w/o buying the mainframe!" But if/when you actually need and can afford a multimillion dollar mainframe (or equivalent), cloud pricing might not be much savings.


>Those who continue to do significant work offline will become the exception; meaning they will be an electoral minority. With so much effort being put into web apps, they may even be seen as eccentrics; meaning there may not be much sympathy for their needs in the halls of power

Already happened, unfortunately. Google's ecosystem, is tuned to constantly nudge you towards the cloud. My pet peeve is their "discontinuing" of Picasa (offline photo manager/editor/viewer) and removing the download links from their websites, and peddling Google Photos (cloud service) as a "replacement". It also takes mental effort to prevent photos from going to the cloud when you get a new phone.


I think the writers of Borg at Google thought the same thing.

BCL is just one part that's clearly inspired OS/360 et al. (look at JCL).


> This is why “free” and open source software (FOSS) will not help us. A software license touches on the software, not on the human relationships which the software mediates. It is those relationships that lock us into positions where Zuckerberg's foot is on our necks.

I have never heard such a succinct reason why Stallman's crusade against proprietary software will not work. I will remember this.


Succinct but wrong.

Here's Stallman in 2010:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: