nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
 ·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
Re: Odd Message from Bell
said by CanerisErik  :However, to ask again: what makes you think Bell has today's mainframes? Virtually no one uses mainframes that are more than several years old for essentially the same reasons why few people use PCs that are more than 8 or 10 years old. The technology improves at such a rapid pace and the cost of replacing it declines so much that it is simply more expensive to keep old iron than to replace it. Indeed PCs can usually be upgraded easily and at relatively low cost. That is generally not an option for mainframes.
You're giving them too much credit...such cost savings and not wasting $ would make too much sense for them, they're not that smart, ya know? I do not give Bell's management credit for much, however, even they are not that dumb.
(I do have ways to find out what mainframes Bell uses, however, it would take a few phone calls and my sources would have to do some work. It is simply not worth the effort or their time to confirm this.) |
|
ftp1020
join:2007-01-30
Canada
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik :what makes you think Bell has today's mainframes? Perhaps because they don't own them. For years, IBM either leased them, or leased time (sold by the MIPS) on them through their ISM company. The demise of Big Iron has been predicted for decades now, but it never seems to happen as new uses are found for those types of machines. With their phenomenal I/O power (if not raw CPU power), a single mainframe can host thousands of web servers and not even blink at the traffic.
When PCs can copy and back up a multi-million record DB2/SQL database in less time than it takes to say "zzzzt", talk to me about how "powerful" PCs are.
Another thing is standards, reliability, and predictability. PC standards change (IDE is now SATA, PCI-e is now PCI-e 2.0 etc) faster than you can write them down. Meanwhile, my quick reference card for JCL has a "copyright 1972" on it because the standards and batch interface language haven't changed. You don't have to retrain staff every 5 weeks just because Intel comes out with The Next Big Thing.
I apply mainframe thinking to my PC purchases: if I don't have an actual need to upgrade (particularly software) ... I don't. Newer for newer's sake is often disastrous. |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| reply to nanook
That's impressive! I must admit a fair amount of ignorance of recent developments in the field.
However, to ask again: what makes you think Bell has today's mainframes? You're giving them too much credit...such cost savings and not wasting $ would make too much sense for them, they're not that smart, ya know?  |
|
nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik :said by nanook :said by CanerisErik :mainframes requiring maintenance by dinosaurs. Today's mainframes are nothing like your father's mainframes. In addition to running all the legacy stuff under z/OS, they also run 100s or 1,000s of instances of Linux, all on one box, all centrally managed and with the power consumption, capacity and reliability that other technologies can only dream of. Associating today's mainframes with an organization like Bell is a giant insult to mainframes -- and dinosaurs. What makes you think Bell has today's mainframes instead of those from the 60's? Because today's mainframes cost a tiny fraction of those from 10 or 15 years ago. The cost of maintaining the hardware in an older mainframe system alone is prohibitive. Meanwhile legacy software written 40 years ago continues to run just fine on the latest models.
As for power consumption (I was actually referring to processing power but since you raised the subject):IBM's Project Big Green Spurs Global Shift to Linux on Mainframe quote:
In one of the most significant transformations of its worldwide data centers in a generation, IBM today announced that it will consolidate about 3,900 computer servers onto about 30 System z mainframes running the Linux operating system. The company anticipates that the new server environment will consume approximately 80 percent less energy than the current set up and expects significant savings over five years in energy, software and system support costs...
said by CanerisErik :said by nanook :You owe us[*] "dinosaurs" an apology. "dinosaurs" was said with love, I swear!  I know. I am just pulling your dinosaur-loving tail |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| reply to nanook
said by nanook :said by CanerisErik :mainframes requiring maintenance by dinosaurs. Today's mainframes are nothing like your father's mainframes. In addition to running all the legacy stuff under z/OS, they also run 100s or 1,000s of instances of Linux, all on one box, all centrally managed and with the power consumption, capacity and reliability that other technologies can only dream of. Associating today's mainframes with an organization like Bell is a giant insult to mainframes -- and dinosaurs. What makes you think Bell has today's mainframes instead of those from the 60's?
said by nanook :You owe us[*] "dinosaurs" an apology. "dinosaurs" was said with love, I swear! |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| reply to ftp1020
said by ftp1020 :said by CanerisErik :My dad's one, so I get to make fun of a COBOL/CICS/Fortran/VMS/whatever person on a regular basis ... "get up with the times, it ain't the 60's anymore man" If your dad's not charging $100+ per hour, he's not doing it right... MVS/TSO FTW! Hehehe...I should tell him to raise the $... |
|
nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik :mainframes requiring maintenance by dinosaurs. Today's mainframes are nothing like your father's mainframes. In addition to running all the legacy stuff under z/OS, they also run 100s or 1,000s of instances of Linux, all on one box, all centrally managed and with the power, capacity and reliability that other technologies can only dream of. Associating today's mainframes with an organization like Bell is a giant insult to mainframes -- and dinosaurs.
You owe us[*] "dinosaurs" an apology.
[*] Proudly earning my daily bread through the care and feeding of dinosaurs since 1970. |
|
peatbog
@teksavvy.com
| reply to ftp1020
Thank God for the y2k scare. Dinosaurs like me were able to cash in on all those COBOL programs that needed changing (because of the half-baked code we wrote back in the 60s and 70s - sort of like giving yourself a bonus to be paid out 30 years in the future). |
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON | reply to ftp1020
someone needs to get a recording of this message as well as the call in to bell.. . |
|
ftp1020
join:2007-01-30
Canada
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik :My dad's one, so I get to make fun of a COBOL/CICS/Fortran/VMS/whatever person on a regular basis ... "get up with the times, it ain't the 60's anymore man" If your dad's not charging $100+ per hour, he's not doing it right...
MVS/TSO FTW! |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| reply to ftp1020
said by ftp1020 :said by CanerisErik :mainframes requiring maintenance by dinosaurs. Hey! I resemble that remark!! My dad's one, so I get to make fun of a COBOL/CICS/Fortran/VMS/whatever person on a regular basis ... "get up with the times, it ain't the 60's anymore man" |
|
ftp1020
join:2007-01-30
Canada
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
said by CanerisErik :mainframes requiring maintenance by dinosaurs. Hey! I resemble that remark!! |
|
DarkStar33
join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
Oh I know all about it believe me.
However if a system so complex that it makes errors like this then it needs to be re-factored into smaller subsystems that have specific tasks.
If you encompass every possible piece of data within one application you designed the application wrong. The shear amount of data is meaningless these days as long as you can manage and access it properly through proper scope control.
However this could be completely 100% human error as no system can overcome that.
In regards to the sheer amount of problems I have personally seen in Billing, Services and Fufilment I feel Bell has been neglecting these systems. |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| reply to DarkStar33
said by DarkStar33 :Like every other application Bell uses the fulfillment system is also possibly faulty. Its better to call back and ensure no service was issued. My finance once had a phone line that we had to call 7 times to get canceled. It was deactivated for 2 months and then suddenly we got yet another bill forwarded to us. They had no record of us calling to re-activate it either, it just happened. Telco/cableco OSS/billing/provisioning systems are some of the trickiest pieces of software ever written. The volume of data alone is just phenomenal. Trying to understand these database schemas or state machine transitions is no simple task even for the most seasoned developer.
To make things even more difficult for customers and the company, the sad thing is that for telcos/cablecos the size of those who have forums here on DSLR, there is a very small number of folks there who actually understand how everything works and how all the systems interact with each other and all the effects of changes, etc.
Think the usual "stuff breaks at 2AM and you're asking 'who made the change?' and everyone tries to put the finger on someone else" multiplied by a thousand.
For good fun, add 3rd party vendors, contractors, and mainframes requiring maintenance by dinosaurs.
When I worked for a certain company who has a forum on DSLR, discovering that one of the devs involved in network topology systems/tools/DBs had zero understanding of subnetting explained a lot! |
|
DarkStar33
join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to Willy_ph
Like every other application Bell uses the fulfillment system is also possibly faulty.
Its better to call back and ensure no service was issued. My finance once had a phone line that we had to call 7 times to get canceled.
It was deactivated for 2 months and then suddenly we got yet another bill forwarded to us.
They had no record of us calling to re-activate it either, it just happened. |
|
DJ R
Premium
join:2005-06-12
Brossard, QC | reply to Willy_ph
Mm.. sounds like they are trying to pirate your money since they are losing a lot of customers. |
|
Turbinator
join:2007-10-14
Mississauga, ON | reply to Willy_ph
Same here, I was thinking lets just hope that they are actually switching people to Sympatico. It would completly blow up in to their face. |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to CanerisErik
Let's get some confirmation that Bell is indeed switching customers back to Sympatico without authorization, then the Competition Bureau would have to act! It would be really stupid on Bell's part to pull a stunt like this as it's only going to further hurt their case. I actually hope they are that stupid. |
|
JayMan
Whoot
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Earth | reply to Willy_ph
I had DELL sign me up to Bell without my permission. |
|
CanerisErik
Caneris
Premium,VIP
join:2007-10-03
Toronto, ON
| reply to eots
said by eots :I doubt it. If Bell started switching 3rd party DSL customers back to Sympatico without approval then they'd have a major lawsuit on their hands. It's funny because the same thing was said about throttling months ago when no one believed it would happen. |
|
