20 Feb
2012
20 Feb
'12
4:12 a.m.
>> At least in contemporary IT environments, a
mainframe is defined as a
>> machine that will natively execute 370 assembler. Thus, Hitachi and IBM
>> manufacture mainframes. I know that's not a good definition, but it's
>> pretty common.
> It's a good EXAMPLE, but . . .
> 1) It is NOT a definition
> 2) There exist mainframes that do NOT execute 370 assembler.
> (IBM shops may deny that, but it IS true.)
> 3) There exist NON-mainframes that DO execute 370 assembler.
> (add-on boards for 5160, do NOT change an XT into a mainframe.)
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Jim Brain wrote:
I think I can speak definitively for contemporary IT
environments, which
is how I started my sentence. I did constrain my statement
appropriately, and I did note that the definition was not good, but it
is the truth. I have no issues with folks being pedantic, but the above
just smacks of knowledge "showboating".
No knowlege to showboat.
You definitely have the contemporary expertise. Other than some database
access on 4381?, I don't even SEE mainframes.
And, yes, for those IT shops that remember the
"mainframe on a card",
they would indeed call that a mainframe. MIPS are not important to the
definition. The solution also need not run zOS, as many people run all
zIIP or zAAP modules and they still call it a mainframe.
I am amazed that an XT/370 would be called a "mainframe".
And, . . .
would all machines that were once called "mainframes" that do NOT tun 370
code, now NO LONGER be mainframes?