> Adaptive business and operating models, driven by accelerated disruptions, are shaping the future of enterprises today. Enterprises are embracing the next normal with an accelerated and strategic focus on application modernization, cloud-native processes, and artificial intelligence (AI), all in an effort to ensure timely and resilient business use cases and enhanced business applications for a continuous and positive user experience.
Are you still not allowed to operate a mainframe without wearing a tie?
It's actually a safety issue. Bowties are preferred because they don't get caught in the tape reels, teletype terminals, and punchcard or paper tape handlers. Only half kidding.
Having a dedicated coprocessor for sorting is extremely business.
"Reflective" and "surreal" come to mind...
Who wants EBCDIC in 2021 ? Or workarounds for yet another proprietary compiler everywhere ?
Open-source projects might want to think about rejecting patches for working around bugs in closed-source compilers, or patches that port to closed-source OSs that don't have a significant user base.
If someone waved a magical wand and disappeared every mainframe on the planet right now, every single financial system on the planet would collapse with it.
Why would an open source project reject commits for mainframe support? Because you don't personally use one in your business? By that logic we should dump 99% of the drivers in
Linux because I personally don't have a need for them.
(yes these folks clearly have an interest in mainframe but they provide citations):
I think it’s less a hard rejection than a realistic analysis of the support costs. Platform support is expensive and the extremely wealthy companies using mainframes tend not to contribute resources on an ongoing basis. A really big one is CI & other infrastructure: if you actually want to have a project support your platform, the developers need to be able to run tests regularly including things like proprietary licensed compilers. Getting an open source project to support a platform really requires stepping up here since otherwise you’re just getting the untested illusion of support.
Instead of POSIX, we now just ship a whole OS instead as a kind of "modern" VM, given the trend to run Linux on VM across Windows, Solaris, IBM and Unisys mainframes, FreeBSD, macOS, SmartOS some of them are even certified UNIX platforms.
Well, we have been saying "composition over inheritance" for quite a while... :)
Turns out, an OS that has-a POSIX is often nicer than one that is-a POSIX.
Last time I played with System Z machines you’d run z/Linux either direct on an LPAR or under z/VM (IIRC).
Given just how partitionable these machines are, I’m honestly not sure why you’d want to run Linux applications directly on z/OS...
It should come as no surprise that since Linux has become the defacto POSIX standard that no other OS could keep up (or would want to really).
As for Linux' standards compliance, I am aware.
And some really good tutorials and code from moshix:
Configurations that would be unusable in any sort of production scenario would probably remain interesting.
Yes but not legal checkout MVS Tur(n)key:
And run it with the new Hercules emulator:
MVS is near identical to z/OS and the Turnkey Distro has much more compilers and tools..and games already installed.
BTW LOTS of MVS code still lives in z/os
In other words, in the last decade, has IBM sold a mainframe to any organization that didn’t already have one? Do large companies founded more recently, such as Amazon, PayPal, or Tesla, use them at all?
So, is this a virus scanner for mainframes?