Good question from Timothy Sipples at mainframe blog. What is the point of Microsoft Host Integration Server? He points out that zSeries already offers a host (geddit?) of options for integration-not least TCP/IP, but also HTTP and native XML Web Services access. Timothy makes some good points. Unfortunately the maths is b0rked because practically any major Microsoft enterprise customer is going to get this stuff for free under the terms of their volume licensing agreement. Same for IBM and Microsoft customers. On the other hand the calculation doesn’t include hardware and support costs, so Tim still has a point. I think the topology and redundancy arguments are probably stronger though. I wonder what Charles Fitzgerald would say?
On a completely different note, Charles, just because someone keeps a dossier on you, doesn’t mean you have to change your behaviour. The EU has a dossier on Microsoft, right? Look at Mike Magee of The Inquirer, also founder of The Register- still breaking exclusives after being in the business for god knows how long. His style never changes. Living declaratively and transparently means *not* having to change your style/MO all the time…
Finally though I do really like Charles’ take on truly radical journalistic transparency, which channels some of the ideas people like Dan Farber and David Berlind have been laying out for a while. Would I buy into a publication that offered up this much information? Most definitely. Charles describes what I see as a compelling future for the magazine:
They could post the stories they’re working on, let people vote on who to put on the cover and might as well share all their financials (no Reg FD issues when you’re privately held). Reporters like Fred could post all their interview notes and logs of what PR people they have met and been pitched by. Put the ad revenue per page right by the page number. Letting readers have the data to look for any correlations between editorial coverage and advertising revenue would be a radical blow for transparency
links for 2007-04-11 » SDLC Blog says:
April 11, 2007 at 12:50 am
[…] James Governor’s Monkchips » double A-side: What’s the point of Microsoft Host Integration Serv… Governor’s answer (tags: mainframe zseries microsoft his) […]
Dennis H says:
April 11, 2007 at 1:35 am
Mike does it with style, panache and an attention to fact checking that a few folk out here might care to take note. It sure as heck makes a difference.
Charles says:
April 11, 2007 at 5:42 am
I am most amused at the idea of mainframe guys arguing cost. In the interest of transparency, Timothy might also do the math on what the customer would save if they ripped the mainframe out altogether. Not only do they not need to buy HIS, but they can save a lot more on the recurring costs of the mainframe.
One fundamental reason for HIS is because it is always preferable to run an instruction off the mainframe as opposed to on it, given a choice. The reality is the mainframe is the most expensive place in the world to run code and getting more expensive in relative terms. Welcome to the land that Moore’s Law forgot. Last time I checked (and I haven’t been paying attention for a while), the mainframe was three orders of magnitude more expensive per MIP than x86 and was falling further and further behind. You’re crazy to put any new workload on the mainframe. This is why IBM is always peddling the fad of the moment on the mainframe to see if they can hoodwink people to maintaining or even increasing the workloads on their mainframe. Run Linux and Java on the mainframe, they say, never mind the fact that these cross platform approaches should drive people to the lowest cost hardware, not the highest cost. This week they’ve probably got a sales pitch for how you can Second Life on the mainframe. Anything to keep the mainframe annuity flowing in.
IBM is welcome to disprove this by actually publishing industry standard benchmarks for the mainframe, but for some reason they have not been willing to permit any apples to apples comparisons for years.
Whatever their rationale, customers seem to prefer HIS. The last time I checked about 60% of mainframe installations have an instance of HIS or precursor running.
For all the ways IBM has pitched the “mainframe renaissance” in recent years, the reality is the mainframe base continues to shrink and IBM continues to jack prices for the customers who remain. Perhaps a mainframe blog is just what it will take to turn this around in the face of terrible economics, limited investment, a dying ecosystem and a graying talent pool that isn’t being replenished.
To put this in perspective, we’ve just been through the biggest computing buildout ever in the last decade with the Web, and the mainframe is nowhere to be seen. Even when IBM has tried to pay customers to run portions of their web sites on a mainframe, they have failed. There is a lot of inertia to the installed base, and IBM has been very active in prolonging it as much as possible, but it is a dead end.
James says:
April 11, 2007 at 10:23 am
Back in the days when it was called SNA server, it made sense as the mainframe didn’t have a good TCP/IP stack which it now does. There are still advantages such as being able to provide sync capabilities with RACF to enable a form of SSO.
Chris Craddock says:
April 12, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Is there are role for the Microsoft HIS? Well, on the face of it – no. The outside world can connect quite happily with the mainframe over a pretty broad set of protocols that are supported natively on the box thank you very much. So on that issue I would have to side with Tim Sipples.
The rest of the discussion (here and over on the mainframe blog) is a fairly childish “tis so, no tisn’t” argument between Tim and Charles about costs. Both sides are somewhat ridiculous because they’re comparing pieces of string. Mainframe, Windows, Linux and UNIX each have valid and viable roles in practically every significant enterprise on the planet today. You’re not going to replace my PC with a mainframe or even a mainframe terminal. It’s fantasy to think I’d even want that. On the other hand, I really don’t want my bank account details stored on a commodity SATA drive connected to a commodity Windows PC in my local bank branch.
IT stuff is expensive no matter who you buy it from. Could it be more efficient? Well sure. But a little reality in the discussions would be more productive than strawman arguments that prove nothing – especially when both sides are so coy about what things really cost.