Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#41

Post by avar »

kchamplewski wrote: post #31
js8 wrote: post #14

Of course, the explanation is BS, everybody sees that. But I want to comment that as a young mainframer (I started 14 years ago at the age of 26, with a big IBM competitor), I really enjoyed working with older people. They work quite hard (they have survived lots of changes in the organization, and that - in majority of cases - means that their contribution was appreciated somewhere), often are less crazy (they are s…

I'm curious, how many real competitors are there to IBM in the mainframe space? From what I've seen the majority of the products in use are basically IBM only.

The main competitor isn't other mainframes, but PCs.

A lot of mainframe users never needed a mainframe, they just didn't want to get fired for not buying IBM. Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs.

There are some users whose use is genuinely deeply entwined with features mainframes provide, but those are dying out.

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#42

Post by WalterBright »

js8 wrote: post #14

Of course, the explanation is BS, everybody sees that. But I want to comment that as a young mainframer (I started 14 years ago at the age of 26, with a big IBM competitor), I really enjoyed working with older people. They work quite hard (they have survived lots of changes in the organization, and that - in majority of cases - means that their contribution was appreciated somewhere), often are less crazy (they are s…

When I worked at Boeing (my first real job) I learned an awful lot from the older engineers. But when I switched to the software biz, older ones didn't exist and I had to pretty much learn everything the hard way.

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#44

Post by oblio »

avar wrote: post #41
kchamplewski wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, how many real competitors are there to IBM in the mainframe space? From what I've seen the majority of the products in use are basically IBM only.

The main competitor isn't other mainframes, but PCs. A lot of mainframe users never needed a mainframe, they just didn't want to get fired for not buying IBM. Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs. There are some users whose use is genuinely deeply entwined with features mainframes provide, but those are dying out.

> Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs.

I don't buy this. Many of our critical systems are on PC architectures. Mainframes don't have some magic sauce, well designed distributed architectures should offer enough reliability.

Edit: reading comprehension fail, please ignore my comment :-)

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#45

Post by blihp »

MegaButts wrote: post #22

I was curious what IBM still makes that people use since they sold their Thinkpad division to Lenovo years ago, so I googled it: > IBM produces and sells computer hardware, middleware and software, and provides hosting and consulting services in areas ranging from mainframe computers to nanotechnology. IBM is also a major research organization, holding the record for most U.S. patents generated by a business (as of 2…

Something that can be listed as (intangible) assets on their balance sheet as well as for use as defensive/offensive weapons against other companies. The majority of them likely have very little actual value.

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#46

Post by raxxorrax »

Good for all those immortal millenials... Seriously, if that isn't just a specious ground to justify firings, I think management at IBM is just completely incompetent.

> [...] much more innovative and receptive to technology than baby boomers.

Not sure whose head has accumulated chalk, but I doubt they will find anyone creative that doesn't immediately recognize the downsides of these perspectives.

I don't think IBM is badly positioned in general, but their lacking competition to bigger tech corps are due to strategic failings, which should be attributed to management. If that cannot take responsibility, I don't know why I should want to work for them.

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#47

Post by jnbiche »

flukus wrote: post #16
fouc wrote: post #7

s/Millennials/Generation Z/ at this point. Millennials are all in their 30s and older now.

> s/Millennials/Generation Z/ at this point. I don't think that works either, Gen Z are either really early in their career and only making up a tiny fraction of the industry or not in any career at all yet, it's hardly the demographic IBM needs to appeal to. As an older millennial my hair is starting to take on a grayish tinge and ageism in the industry is becoming a direct concern, so this can only lower my opinion…

Ageism in our industry should be a concern to everyone, regardless of the amount of grey hair they have.

We all get old, after all. And more importantly, even if we didn't all get old, it's still wrong to discriminate (we don't all become black over time, but it's still wrong to discriminate in the basis of race).

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#48

Post by akerl_ »

oblio wrote: post #44
avar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main competitor isn't other mainframes, but PCs. A lot of mainframe users never needed a mainframe, they just didn't want to get fired for not buying IBM. Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs. There are some users whose use is genuinely deeply entwined with features mainframes provide, but those are dying out.

> Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs. I don't buy this. Many of our critical systems are on PC architectures. Mainframes don't have some magic sauce, well designed distributed architectures should offer enough reliability. Edit: reading comprehension fail, please ignore my comment :-)

You seem to be saying the same thing as the line you quoted: both of you are pointing out that distributed PCs can achieve comparable reliability.

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#49

Post by oblio »

akerl_ wrote: post #48
oblio wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs. I don't buy this. Many of our critical systems are on PC architectures. Mainframes don't have some magic sauce, well designed distributed architectures should offer enough reliability. Edit: reading comprehension fail, please ignore my comment :-)

You seem to be saying the same thing as the line you quoted: both of you are pointing out that distributed PCs can achieve comparable reliability.

Yeah, you're right, it's too early in the morning for comments. I'll leave my comment up so that others can make fun of it :-p

Re: IBM Fired as Many as 100k in Recent Years, Lawsuit Shows

#50

Post by [deleted] »

oblio wrote: post #44
avar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main competitor isn't other mainframes, but PCs. A lot of mainframe users never needed a mainframe, they just didn't want to get fired for not buying IBM. Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs. There are some users whose use is genuinely deeply entwined with features mainframes provide, but those are dying out.

> Other users need some sort of mainframe reliability, but that's also achievable on a distributed system running on unreliable PCs. I don't buy this. Many of our critical systems are on PC architectures. Mainframes don't have some magic sauce, well designed distributed architectures should offer enough reliability. Edit: reading comprehension fail, please ignore my comment :-)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN