The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
winestockwebdesign.com
The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
1–10 of 14 posts
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#2It'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."
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#3I 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).
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#4[deleted]
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#5It'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.
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#6> 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.
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#7It'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.
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#8It'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."
> 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.
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Re: The Eternal Mainframe (2013)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.