| When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399312] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 06:12  |
|
|
Originally posted by: Thomas Koenig
Clearly, in the 1980s, mainframes ruled the commercial world, at
least for large companies.
By that time, they had mostly lost the crown of scientific
calculation to the minis (with the exception of vector computers).
So, when did they lose their dominant commercial position?
At the company I used to work for, they had a home-grown accounting
system running on mainframes, which they then replaced with an ERP
system in the late 1990s. That system didn't need the mainframes
any more, so they were deactivated.
(You could argue that a company which does that replaces a hardware
vendor lock with the mother of all software vendor locks.)
Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is
no certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
So, when did the mainframes start losing the commercial computing
centers? Is around 2000-ish the right timeframe?
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399314 is a reply to message #399312] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 06:55  |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
> Clearly, in the 1980s, mainframes ruled the commercial world, at
> least for large companies.
>
> By that time, they had mostly lost the crown of scientific
> calculation to the minis (with the exception of vector computers).
>
> So, when did they lose their dominant commercial position?
>
> At the company I used to work for, they had a home-grown accounting
> system running on mainframes, which they then replaced with an ERP
> system in the late 1990s. That system didn't need the mainframes
> any more, so they were deactivated.
>
> (You could argue that a company which does that replaces a hardware
> vendor lock with the mother of all software vendor locks.)
>
> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is
> no certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>
> So, when did the mainframes start losing the commercial computing
> centers? Is around 2000-ish the right timeframe?
We've all probably got our own little peephole that we look at computing
history through.
I remember discussion among my peers about automating dentist offices,
gas stations, etc. there was a huge untapped market there, but S/360
was priced way out of that market. Then in the 90s PCs started
to enter that market. That's when I saw the future of the mainframe.
I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant
movement off the mainframe. But of course there are plenty of
large companies that are still on mainframes and will remain there
for the foreseeable future.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399315 is a reply to message #399314] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 07:19 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
> We've all probably got our own little peephole that we look at computing
> history through.
>
> I remember discussion among my peers about automating dentist offices,
> gas stations, etc. there was a huge untapped market there, but S/360
> was priced way out of that market. Then in the 90s PCs started to enter
> that market. That's when I saw the future of the mainframe.
>
> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant movement off
> the mainframe. But of course there are plenty of large companies that
> are still on mainframes and will remain there for the foreseeable
> future.
Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech guys
gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to catch on
in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was X
terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
The only reason there weren't many PCs in that place was the director.
Nice guy, but he'd taken against PCs for soem reason. He retired a year
later, and the tech guy suddenly found PCs everywhere. Not many X
terminals, even as PCs.
(I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
command prompt windows it could display).
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399319 is a reply to message #399315] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 08:31 |
Niklas Karlsson
Messages: 265
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>
> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
> command prompt windows it could display).
That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
yet.
Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
Niklas
--
"... I've seen Sun monitors on fire off the side of the multimedia lab.
I've seen NTU lights glitter in the dark near the Mail Gate.
All these things will be lost in time, like the root partition last week.
Time to die...". - Peter Gutmann in alt.sysadmin.recovery
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399321 is a reply to message #399319] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 09:26 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>> command prompt windows it could display).
>
> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
(You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
> yet.
As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
rather than enhancing what's already working.
I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
"tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
either).
So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
go away.
As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
to tell one terminal from another.
Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
an existing terminal on treerat.
That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
keystroke.
The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399322 is a reply to message #399319] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 09:30 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:31:55 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>> command prompt windows it could display).
>
> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>
> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
> yet.
>
> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
I'm happy enough with Xfce and my choice of mail client, browser and news
client.
But I spend most of my time (other than that) at the command prompt.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399324 is a reply to message #399314] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 09:44 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
>> Clearly, in the 1980s, mainframes ruled the commercial world, at
>> least for large companies.
>>
>> By that time, they had mostly lost the crown of scientific
>> calculation to the minis (with the exception of vector computers).
>>
>> So, when did they lose their dominant commercial position?
>>
>> At the company I used to work for, they had a home-grown accounting
>> system running on mainframes, which they then replaced with an ERP
>> system in the late 1990s. That system didn't need the mainframes
>> any more, so they were deactivated.
>>
>> (You could argue that a company which does that replaces a hardware
>> vendor lock with the mother of all software vendor locks.)
>>
>> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is
>> no certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
>> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>>
>> So, when did the mainframes start losing the commercial computing
>> centers? Is around 2000-ish the right timeframe?
>
> We've all probably got our own little peephole that we look at computing
> history through.
>
> I remember discussion among my peers about automating dentist offices,
> gas stations, etc. there was a huge untapped market there, but S/360
> was priced way out of that market. Then in the 90s PCs started
> to enter that market. That's when I saw the future of the mainframe.
>
> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant
> movement off the mainframe. But of course there are plenty of
> large companies that are still on mainframes and will remain there
> for the foreseeable future.
We likely will be until some time in the early 2100s. Our new
products are supported on a hardware-agnostic admin system but the old
ones will be in force until then. Life insurance is a long game.
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399327 is a reply to message #399312] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 10:20 |
faux_dameron
Messages: 43
Registered: May 2020
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 10:12:14 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is no
> certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>
There isn't certified hardware for HANA on zSystem, but there is for
SUSE. They has 90% market share as the distro of choice for SAP. I know
because I work there.
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399330 is a reply to message #399314] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 11:59 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant
> movement off the mainframe. But of course there are plenty of
I'd say the shift started earlier, from the late 80s there was the
rise of the unix server - usually a box with a QIC tape drive on the
front, a *lot* of RS232 ports on the back and a 68K or 808*6 or similar.
They started eating away at the bottom end of the mini market until around
1990 it started to be possible to use a cluster of them to outperform a
mainframe in some applications.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399331 is a reply to message #399321] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 12:04 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>
>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>
>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>
> Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
> terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
> (You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
> I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
somebody shot in the leg.
>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>> yet.
>
> As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
> is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
> rather than enhancing what's already working.
>
> I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
> "tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
> tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
> no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
> either).
>
> So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
> Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
> go away.
>
> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
> change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
> my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
> change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
> was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>
>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
>> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
>> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>
> Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
> I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
> If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
> shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
> I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
> terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
>
> The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
> argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
> to tell one terminal from another.
>
> Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
> host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
> an existing terminal on treerat.
>
> That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
> keystroke.
>
> The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
> to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
>
> I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
>
> I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
> I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
> I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
Windows--might involve writing some real code.
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399333 is a reply to message #399331] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 12:26 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>
>>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>>
>>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>
>> Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>> terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>> (You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>> I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>
> This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
> that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
> not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>
> And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
> somebody shot in the leg.
Yes an X terminal is significantly simpler than a full blown PC
but it still has to have a lot of the same parts.
>>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>>> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>>> yet.
>>
>> As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
>> is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
>> rather than enhancing what's already working.
>>
>> I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
>> "tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
>> tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
>> no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
>> either).
>>
>> So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
>> Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
>> go away.
>>
>> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>> change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>> my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>> change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>> was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>>
>>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>>> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>>> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
>>> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
>>> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>>
>> Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
>> I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
>> If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
>> shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
>> I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
>> terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
>>
>> The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
>> argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
>> to tell one terminal from another.
>>
>> Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
>> host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
>> an existing terminal on treerat.
>>
>> That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
>> keystroke.
>>
>> The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
>> to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
>>
>> I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
>>
>> I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
>> I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
>> I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
>
> Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
> Windows--might involve writing some real code.
As far as I can tell, the Windows OS owns the root window.
I'm not a windows expert but I couldn't find a way to write my own key bindings
and Windows doesn't expose it for cusomization.
I'm a big fan of root window key bindings.
Typically the root window brings up menus and you navigate the menus
with the arrow keys. So, I use the arrow keys to launch root window menus.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399334 is a reply to message #399327] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 12:27 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Thomas Koenig
Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> schrieb:
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 10:12:14 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is no
>> certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
>> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>>
>
> There isn't certified hardware for HANA on zSystem,
That's what I meant, I expressed myself poorly there.
> but there is for
> SUSE. They has 90% market share as the distro of choice for SAP. I know
> because I work there.
And there is something about this I don't understand. At the company
I work, it is _really_ hard to get a non-Windows box connected to
the company network, because of security concerns. Yet SAP, the
most business-critical appliation of all, runs on Linux servers.
Oh well...
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399337 is a reply to message #399333] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 12:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:26:05 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> > command prompt windows it could display).
>>>>
>>>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>>
>>> Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>>> terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>>> (You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>>> I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>>
>> This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
>> that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
>> not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>>
>> And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
>> somebody shot in the leg.
>
> Yes an X terminal is significantly simpler than a full blown PC
> but it still has to have a lot of the same parts.
>
>>>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>>>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>>>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>>>> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>>>> yet.
>>>
>>> As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
>>> is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
>>> rather than enhancing what's already working.
>>>
>>> I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
>>> "tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
>>> tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
>>> no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
>>> either).
>>>
>>> So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
>>> Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
>>> go away.
>>>
>>> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>>> change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>>> my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>>> change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>>> was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>>>
>>>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>>>> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>>>> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
>>>> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
>>>> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>>>
>>> Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
>>> I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
>>> If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
>>> shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
>>> I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
>>> terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
>>>
>>> The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
>>> argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
>>> to tell one terminal from another.
>>>
>>> Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
>>> host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
>>> an existing terminal on treerat.
>>>
>>> That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
>>> keystroke.
>>>
>>> The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
>>> to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
>>>
>>> I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
>>>
>>> I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
>>> I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
>>> I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
>>
>> Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
>> Windows--might involve writing some real code.
>
> As far as I can tell, the Windows OS owns the root window.
> I'm not a windows expert but I couldn't find a way to write my own key bindings
> and Windows doesn't expose it for cusomization.
>
> I'm a big fan of root window key bindings.
>
> Typically the root window brings up menus and you navigate the menus
> with the arrow keys. So, I use the arrow keys to launch root window menus.
The established way to do this in Windows is with third party
software. "Autohotkey" is the most common. There are also
brute-force methods--any decent gamer keyboard lets you set up
keyboard macros that are run on the keyboard's internal processor.
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399338 is a reply to message #399334] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 12:58 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
> Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> schrieb:
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 10:12:14 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>>> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is no
>>> certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
>>> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>>>
>>
>> There isn't certified hardware for HANA on zSystem,
>
> That's what I meant, I expressed myself poorly there.
>
>> but there is for
>> SUSE. They has 90% market share as the distro of choice for SAP. I know
>> because I work there.
>
> And there is something about this I don't understand. At the company
> I work, it is _really_ hard to get a non-Windows box connected to
> the company network, because of security concerns. Yet SAP, the
> most business-critical appliation of all, runs on Linux servers.
>
> Oh well...
Of course you don't understand it.
It's corporate think.
You wouldn't be rational if you understood it.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399339 is a reply to message #399338] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 13:01 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:58:04 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
>> Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> schrieb:
>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 10:12:14 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is no
>>>> certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
>>>> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There isn't certified hardware for HANA on zSystem,
>>
>> That's what I meant, I expressed myself poorly there.
>>
>>> but there is for
>>> SUSE. They has 90% market share as the distro of choice for SAP. I know
>>> because I work there.
>>
>> And there is something about this I don't understand. At the company
>> I work, it is _really_ hard to get a non-Windows box connected to
>> the company network, because of security concerns. Yet SAP, the
>> most business-critical appliation of all, runs on Linux servers.
>>
>> Oh well...
>
> Of course you don't understand it.
> It's corporate think.
> You wouldn't be rational if you understood it.
Different systems are maintained by different parts of the
organization, and each has its own rules. And some of them are nuts.
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399342 is a reply to message #399337] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 14:03 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:26:05 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> >> command prompt windows it could display).
>>>> >
>>>> > That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>>>
>>>> Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>>>> terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>>>> (You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>>>> I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>>>
>>> This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
>>> that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
>>> not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>>>
>>> And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
>>> somebody shot in the leg.
>>
>> Yes an X terminal is significantly simpler than a full blown PC
>> but it still has to have a lot of the same parts.
>>
>>>> > I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>>>> > bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>>>> > different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>>>> > etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>>>> > yet.
>>>>
>>>> As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
>>>> is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
>>>> rather than enhancing what's already working.
>>>>
>>>> I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
>>>> "tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
>>>> tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
>>>> no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
>>>> either).
>>>>
>>>> So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
>>>> Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
>>>> go away.
>>>>
>>>> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>>>> change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>>>> my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>>>> change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>>>> was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>>>>
>>>> > Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>>>> > pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>>>> > keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
>>>> > in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
>>>> > the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>>>>
>>>> Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
>>>> I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
>>>> If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
>>>> shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
>>>> I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
>>>> terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
>>>>
>>>> The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
>>>> argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
>>>> to tell one terminal from another.
>>>>
>>>> Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
>>>> host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
>>>> an existing terminal on treerat.
>>>>
>>>> That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
>>>> keystroke.
>>>>
>>>> The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
>>>> to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
>>>>
>>>> I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
>>>>
>>>> I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
>>>> I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
>>>> I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
>>>
>>> Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
>>> Windows--might involve writing some real code.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the Windows OS owns the root window.
>> I'm not a windows expert but I couldn't find a way to write my own key bindings
>> and Windows doesn't expose it for cusomization.
>>
>> I'm a big fan of root window key bindings.
>>
>> Typically the root window brings up menus and you navigate the menus
>> with the arrow keys. So, I use the arrow keys to launch root window menus.
>
> The established way to do this in Windows is with third party
> software. "Autohotkey" is the most common. There are also
> brute-force methods--any decent gamer keyboard lets you set up
> keyboard macros that are run on the keyboard's internal processor.
I see, both the keyboard solution and autohotkeys are a macro
approach.
As I said, I had a bunch of terminals only distinguished by the host
they were logged into and I could warp to them by the host they were logged into.
I wonder what kind of macro would know how to do that?
In X windows, each window is assigned a name class and resource which
external programs and the window manager can use to access the window.
The command line to start the terminal lets you assign a name.
I've been looking at replacing my keyboard. It's a mechanical model
with backlit keys. It still works but some of the lights are no longer
working and the manufacturer bit the dust so I can no longer
buy their LEDs.
I was looking at a neat Logitech model but the pandemic hit and they
pulled it from production. There are lots of LED models but most of
them have serious light leakage around the outside of the key.
The ones I'm considering now all have RGB, any light on the keyboard can
be any color. Sort of nuts but there are Linux drivers for them.
Many of them support macros, but I don't really need that.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399343 is a reply to message #399312] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 14:07 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:
> On 9/5/2020 11:26 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>>
>>>> I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
>>>> I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
>>>> I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
>>>
>>> Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
>>> Windows--might involve writing some real code.
>> As far as I can tell, the Windows OS owns the root window.
>> I'm not a windows expert but I couldn't find a way to write my own key bindings
>> and Windows doesn't expose it for cusomization.
>> I'm a big fan of root window key bindings.
>> Typically the root window brings up menus and you navigate the menus
>> with the arrow keys. So, I use the arrow keys to launch root window menus.
>
> As a user, there are of course various hotkey/scripting programs for
> Windows (I use AutoHotKey, it's pretty slick, GPL2 and the source is
> online). I realize that's not getting down in the weeds and doing it
> yourself.
See my other post, not sure if it could do it at all.
Of course I no longer need that since I don't work anymore.
It might cover the stuff I do now. Not sure.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399350 is a reply to message #399315] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 14:59 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 2020-09-05, Bob Eager wrote:
....
> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech guys
> gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to catch on
> in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was X
> terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
That worked really well at university for me. We had a mix of X
terminals and netbooting Sun workstations. It didn't matter which
machine you sat down at, and you didn't have to administer anything,
except make sure I didn't exceed my quotas. All kinds of useful
software was made available.
At workplaces I've only seen that kind of setup once or twice. It's
common though to do all useful work on a set of central servers; then
the computer on your desk becomes more or less an expensive X
terminal.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399352 is a reply to message #399342] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 15:15 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:03:38 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:26:05 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> >>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>>> >
>>>> >Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>>>> >terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>>>> >(You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>>>> >I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>>>>
>>>> This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
>>>> that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
>>>> not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>>>>
>>>> And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
>>>> somebody shot in the leg.
>>>
>>> Yes an X terminal is significantly simpler than a full blown PC
>>> but it still has to have a lot of the same parts.
>>>
>>>> >> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>>>> >> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>>>> >> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>>>> >> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>>>> >> yet.
>>>> >
>>>> >As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
>>>> >is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
>>>> >rather than enhancing what's already working.
>>>> >
>>>> >I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
>>>> >"tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
>>>> >tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
>>>> >no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
>>>> >either).
>>>> >
>>>> >So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
>>>> >Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
>>>> >go away.
>>>> >
>>>> >As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>>>> >change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>>>> >my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>>>> >change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>>>> >was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>>>> >
>>>> >> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>>>> >> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>>>> >> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
>>>> >> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
>>>> >> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>>>> >
>>>> >Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
>>>> >I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
>>>> >If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
>>>> >shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
>>>> >I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
>>>> >terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
>>>> >
>>>> >The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
>>>> >argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
>>>> >to tell one terminal from another.
>>>> >
>>>> >Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
>>>> >host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
>>>> >an existing terminal on treerat.
>>>> >
>>>> >That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
>>>> >keystroke.
>>>> >
>>>> >The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
>>>> >to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
>>>> >
>>>> >I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
>>>> >
>>>> >I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
>>>> >I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
>>>> >I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
>>>> Windows--might involve writing some real code.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the Windows OS owns the root window.
>>> I'm not a windows expert but I couldn't find a way to write my own key bindings
>>> and Windows doesn't expose it for cusomization.
>>>
>>> I'm a big fan of root window key bindings.
>>>
>>> Typically the root window brings up menus and you navigate the menus
>>> with the arrow keys. So, I use the arrow keys to launch root window menus.
>>
>> The established way to do this in Windows is with third party
>> software. "Autohotkey" is the most common. There are also
>> brute-force methods--any decent gamer keyboard lets you set up
>> keyboard macros that are run on the keyboard's internal processor.
>
> I see, both the keyboard solution and autohotkeys are a macro
> approach.
>
> As I said, I had a bunch of terminals only distinguished by the host
> they were logged into and I could warp to them by the host they were logged into.
>
> I wonder what kind of macro would know how to do that?
>
> In X windows, each window is assigned a name class and resource which
> external programs and the window manager can use to access the window.
> The command line to start the terminal lets you assign a name.
>
> I've been looking at replacing my keyboard. It's a mechanical model
> with backlit keys. It still works but some of the lights are no longer
> working and the manufacturer bit the dust so I can no longer
> buy their LEDs.
>
> I was looking at a neat Logitech model but the pandemic hit and they
> pulled it from production. There are lots of LED models but most of
> them have serious light leakage around the outside of the key.
>
> The ones I'm considering now all have RGB, any light on the keyboard can
> be any color. Sort of nuts but there are Linux drivers for them.
> Many of them support macros, but I don't really need that.
Right now, I'm finding that I don't have any of my systems set up for
remote access so I can't experiment until I do some reconfiguring. But
AutoHotkey does have a provision to activate a window by window
handle.
With regard to keyboards, my three favorites are all Logitech. The
G910 is the one I use most of the time at home (I use a different one
at work but it's company-provided and the best thing I can say about
it is that it works). Before the G910 I had a K800--enough keys on it
finally lost the ability to retain a keycap that I replaced it with
the 910. I have a G915 which is a wonderful keyboard if you're
working on a desk or tabletop but the lack of any kind of rest for the
heel of the hand makes it less comfortable for use in one's lap, which
is now my normal working mode. All are backlit. The 800 is white
backlit, the other two are RGB. The 800 and 915 are wireless--the 800
needs a dongle, the 915 has a dongle but it's run what you brung--it
can connect using the dongle, Bluetooth, or I believe there's a way to
use it with wifi. They should all work with Linux, but making the 910
and 915 do tricks may require a specialized driver.
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399353 is a reply to message #399319] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 15:17 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 2020-09-05, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>
>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>> command prompt windows it could display).
>
> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>
> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
> etc.
Too many different projects fiddling with it and adding layers on top,
from Motif in the 1990s to Gnome and whatever is hot today. I ignore
all that and use just an old window manager (ctwm). Works fine so far;
nothing important really /depends/ on Gnome and friends.
Many others successfully use tiling window managers, which are (see
above) optimized for displaying a bunch of terminal emulators.
> Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
> yet.
>
> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
> pretty agreeable these days.
I started using Windows 10 at work this week, and I dislike it. All
windows seem to be decorated differently, and all of them seem to want
to go fullscreen all the time -- which makes sense, because the window
manager makes it really hard to see where one window begins and
another one ends, and which one has focus.
I kind of like the UI of Windows 2000 though; I've run all later
versions until now in some "classic mode" which looks and works like
that one. It's simple and functional.
> And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to)
You must mean something more than PuTTY's "Saved sessions". Those are
in the Windows Registry; a coworker talked about a fork of PuTTY which
puts them in a text file.
> or ssh in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of
> course, in the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399355 is a reply to message #399334] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 15:38 |
Jorgen Grahn
Messages: 606
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 2020-09-05, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> schrieb:
>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 10:12:14 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>
>>> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is no
>>> certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
>>> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>>>
>>
>> There isn't certified hardware for HANA on zSystem,
>
> That's what I meant, I expressed myself poorly there.
>
>> but there is for SUSE. They has 90% market share as the distro of
>> choice for SAP. I know because I work there.
>
> And there is something about this I don't understand. At the company
> I work, it is _really_ hard to get a non-Windows box connected to
> the company network, because of security concerns.
If your security is based on that everything on the network is a
Windows box locked down, maintained and monitored by a bunch of people
who know those Windows boxes really well, then anything else one the
network would become a security concern.
At some point in the future, I'd like to come to a workplace where
everything is visible on the public (IPv6) internet and you can run
any OS you want -- and work from anywhere you want -- as long as you
can authenticate against the various services.
(Part of that happened, in 2015. New workplace, I got a laptop and
was asked what I wanted to run on it. I chose Debian stable, so
someone downloaded the installer for me. For unclear reasons we got
a new IT policy some months later, and everyone had to run
Windows. We still had the same kind of Unix work to do, so we had to
run Linux anyway, in a VM on each laptop. SUSE, because it's more
enterprisey.)
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399356 is a reply to message #399312] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 15:40 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Rick Umali
On 2020-09-05, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> ...
> So, when did the mainframes start losing the commercial computing
> centers? Is around 2000-ish the right timeframe?
My vote would be earlier: 1990s. I graduated from college in 1990, and
the school I went to boasted of their mainframe, which ran MTS (the
Michigan Terminal System). But all of us hip computer science majors
gravitated to the public access workstation labs that started to appear on
campus in the mid-80s. Those had Sun workstations.
--
Rick Umali / rickumali.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399359 is a reply to message #399350] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 16:01 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 18:59:39 +0000, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-09-05, Bob Eager wrote:
> ...
>> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech
>> guys gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to
>> catch on in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was
>> X terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
>
> That worked really well at university for me. We had a mix of X
> terminals and netbooting Sun workstations. It didn't matter which
> machine you sat down at, and you didn't have to administer anything,
> except make sure I didn't exceed my quotas. All kinds of useful
> software was made available.
Never used roaming profiles on Windows? Hell, we have those at home!
Not to mention UNIX with a central NFS server.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399360 is a reply to message #399353] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 16:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 5 Sep 2020 19:17:58 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-09-05, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>
>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>
>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>> etc.
>
> Too many different projects fiddling with it and adding layers on top,
> from Motif in the 1990s to Gnome and whatever is hot today. I ignore
> all that and use just an old window manager (ctwm). Works fine so far;
> nothing important really /depends/ on Gnome and friends.
>
> Many others successfully use tiling window managers, which are (see
> above) optimized for displaying a bunch of terminal emulators.
>
>> Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>> yet.
>>
>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>> pretty agreeable these days.
>
> I started using Windows 10 at work this week, and I dislike it. All
> windows seem to be decorated differently, and all of them seem to want
> to go fullscreen all the time -- which makes sense, because the window
> manager makes it really hard to see where one window begins and
> another one ends, and which one has focus.
Lower right corner--left click once, you should get a display in the
lower right with a bunch of little boxes. One of them is "tablet
mode". Turn it off. There may be other tweaks you need to get to a
reasonable desktop.
>
> I kind of like the UI of Windows 2000 though; I've run all later
> versions until now in some "classic mode" which looks and works like
> that one. It's simple and functional.
Windows 10 on a non-tablet, unless some genius in IT has decided to
"help" you by tweaking the settings, should look kind of like Windows
2000 only with squared corners.
>
>> And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to)
>
> You must mean something more than PuTTY's "Saved sessions". Those are
> in the Windows Registry; a coworker talked about a fork of PuTTY which
> puts them in a text file.
>
>> or ssh in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of
>> course, in the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>
> /Jorgen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399362 is a reply to message #399355] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 16:24 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On 5 Sep 2020 19:38:21 GMT, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-09-05, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Jason Evans <jsevans@mailfence.com> schrieb:
>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 10:12:14 -0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today, some SAP products seem to run on a zSystem, but there is no
>>>> certified hardware for HANA, their high-speed in-memory database,
>>>> for that architecture. It's only Intel and POWER.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There isn't certified hardware for HANA on zSystem,
>>
>> That's what I meant, I expressed myself poorly there.
>>
>>> but there is for SUSE. They has 90% market share as the distro of
>>> choice for SAP. I know because I work there.
>>
>> And there is something about this I don't understand. At the company
>> I work, it is _really_ hard to get a non-Windows box connected to
>> the company network, because of security concerns.
>
> If your security is based on that everything on the network is a
> Windows box locked down, maintained and monitored by a bunch of people
> who know those Windows boxes really well, then anything else one the
> network would become a security concern.
>
> At some point in the future, I'd like to come to a workplace where
> everything is visible on the public (IPv6) internet and you can run
> any OS you want -- and work from anywhere you want -- as long as you
> can authenticate against the various services.
Believe it or not, Microsoft is driving the world in that direction.
It's a little bit scary at times.
> (Part of that happened, in 2015. New workplace, I got a laptop and
> was asked what I wanted to run on it. I chose Debian stable, so
> someone downloaded the installer for me. For unclear reasons we got
> a new IT policy some months later, and everyone had to run
> Windows. We still had the same kind of Unix work to do, so we had to
> run Linux anyway, in a VM on each laptop. SUSE, because it's more
> enterprisey.)
>
> /Jorgen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399364 is a reply to message #399352] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 16:34 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:03:38 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:26:05 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> >>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>>>> >>terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>>>> >>(You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>>>> >>I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>>>> >
>>>> > This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
>>>> > that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
>>>> > not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>>>> >
>>>> > And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
>>>> > somebody shot in the leg.
>>>>
>>>> Yes an X terminal is significantly simpler than a full blown PC
>>>> but it still has to have a lot of the same parts.
>>>>
>>>> >>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>>>> >>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>>>> >>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>>>> >>> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>>>> >>> yet.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
>>>> >>is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
>>>> >>rather than enhancing what's already working.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
>>>> >>"tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
>>>> >>tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
>>>> >>no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
>>>> >>either).
>>>> >>
>>>> >>So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
>>>> >>Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
>>>> >>go away.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>>>> >>change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>>>> >>my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>>>> >>change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>>>> >>was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>>>> >>> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>>>> >>> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
>>>> >>> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
>>>> >>> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
>>>> >>I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
>>>> >>If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
>>>> >>shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
>>>> >>I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
>>>> >>terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
>>>> >>
>>>> >>The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
>>>> >>argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
>>>> >>to tell one terminal from another.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
>>>> >>host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
>>>> >>an existing terminal on treerat.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
>>>> >>keystroke.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
>>>> >>to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
>>>> >>I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
>>>> >>I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
>>>> >
>>>> > Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
>>>> > Windows--might involve writing some real code.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I can tell, the Windows OS owns the root window.
>>>> I'm not a windows expert but I couldn't find a way to write my own key bindings
>>>> and Windows doesn't expose it for cusomization.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a big fan of root window key bindings.
>>>>
>>>> Typically the root window brings up menus and you navigate the menus
>>>> with the arrow keys. So, I use the arrow keys to launch root window menus.
>>>
>>> The established way to do this in Windows is with third party
>>> software. "Autohotkey" is the most common. There are also
>>> brute-force methods--any decent gamer keyboard lets you set up
>>> keyboard macros that are run on the keyboard's internal processor.
>>
>> I see, both the keyboard solution and autohotkeys are a macro
>> approach.
>>
>> As I said, I had a bunch of terminals only distinguished by the host
>> they were logged into and I could warp to them by the host they were logged into.
>>
>> I wonder what kind of macro would know how to do that?
>>
>> In X windows, each window is assigned a name class and resource which
>> external programs and the window manager can use to access the window.
>> The command line to start the terminal lets you assign a name.
>>
>> I've been looking at replacing my keyboard. It's a mechanical model
>> with backlit keys. It still works but some of the lights are no longer
>> working and the manufacturer bit the dust so I can no longer
>> buy their LEDs.
>>
>> I was looking at a neat Logitech model but the pandemic hit and they
>> pulled it from production. There are lots of LED models but most of
>> them have serious light leakage around the outside of the key.
>>
>> The ones I'm considering now all have RGB, any light on the keyboard can
>> be any color. Sort of nuts but there are Linux drivers for them.
>> Many of them support macros, but I don't really need that.
>
> Right now, I'm finding that I don't have any of my systems set up for
> remote access so I can't experiment until I do some reconfiguring. But
> AutoHotkey does have a provision to activate a window by window
> handle.
>
> With regard to keyboards, my three favorites are all Logitech. The
> G910 is the one I use most of the time at home (I use a different one
> at work but it's company-provided and the best thing I can say about
> it is that it works). Before the G910 I had a K800--enough keys on it
> finally lost the ability to retain a keycap that I replaced it with
> the 910. I have a G915 which is a wonderful keyboard if you're
> working on a desk or tabletop but the lack of any kind of rest for the
> heel of the hand makes it less comfortable for use in one's lap, which
> is now my normal working mode. All are backlit. The 800 is white
> backlit, the other two are RGB. The 800 and 915 are wireless--the 800
> needs a dongle, the 915 has a dongle but it's run what you brung--it
> can connect using the dongle, Bluetooth, or I believe there's a way to
> use it with wifi. They should all work with Linux, but making the 910
> and 915 do tricks may require a specialized driver.
I was looking at the 810 before they pulled it from production.
I even had it on order. First they said it would be another month,
then they canceled. Amazon says they have 2 in stock at $300 apiece
but that's where I had the order first accepted then canceled.
Refurbs are cheaper but I think I'll find something better.
Isn't the 910 the one with no scroll lock LED?
I remember not liking they way it looked much but I was considering it.
Then I think I saw no scroll lock LED. (I have software that lights
the scroll lock key when I have unread email. I could have programmed
another key to change color but the missing key annoyed me.)
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399367 is a reply to message #399353] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 16:41 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> writes:
> On Sat, 2020-09-05, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>
>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>
>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>> etc.
>
> Too many different projects fiddling with it and adding layers on top,
> from Motif in the 1990s to Gnome and whatever is hot today. I ignore
> all that and use just an old window manager (ctwm). Works fine so far;
> nothing important really /depends/ on Gnome and friends.
I was using cvtwm when I stumbled on Fvwm.
The "Style" command did it for me.
Much more logical way to organize your settings.
> Many others successfully use tiling window managers, which are (see
> above) optimized for displaying a bunch of terminal emulators.
>
>> Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>> yet.
>>
>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>> pretty agreeable these days.
>
> I started using Windows 10 at work this week, and I dislike it. All
> windows seem to be decorated differently, and all of them seem to want
> to go fullscreen all the time -- which makes sense, because the window
> manager makes it really hard to see where one window begins and
> another one ends, and which one has focus.
>
> I kind of like the UI of Windows 2000 though; I've run all later
> versions until now in some "classic mode" which looks and works like
> that one. It's simple and functional.
I never could get Windows to stop creating new windows under the window
I was working in. Also it's autoraise would drive me nuts.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399371 is a reply to message #399364] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 17:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 16:34:06 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 14:03:38 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 12:26:05 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> >>>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>>>> >>>terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>>>> >>>(You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>>>> >>>I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
>>>> >> that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
>>>> >> not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
>>>> >> somebody shot in the leg.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yes an X terminal is significantly simpler than a full blown PC
>>>> >but it still has to have a lot of the same parts.
>>>> >
>>>> >>>> I'm not really a fan of X, especially what it's become today with a
>>>> >>>> bunch of inconsistent window managers and other systems, umpteen
>>>> >>>> different ways copy/paste works depending on which window you're in,
>>>> >>>> etc. Perhaps Wayland is an improvement somehow - I've not really used it
>>>> >>>> yet.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>As a big fan of Fvwm and a past X windows networked user I think Wayland
>>>> >>>is a bad joke. A typical case of someone wanting to blaze a new path
>>>> >>>rather than enhancing what's already working.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>I watched the Wayland demos and every one of them talked about
>>>> >>>"tearing". I've got years of using X windows, I have no idea what
>>>> >>>tearing they're talking about. Likewise I thought their arguments about
>>>> >>>no one needing networking were (well I don't need it so you don't
>>>> >>>either).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>So, not a fan of Wayland. Fortunately, from what I'm reading,
>>>> >>>Wayland has yet to show it's superiority. I wish it would just die and
>>>> >>>go away.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>>>> >>>change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>>>> >>>my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>>>> >>>change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>>>> >>>was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Windows 10 and macOS have their flaws, to be sure, but their GUIs are
>>>> >>>> pretty agreeable these days. And with PuTTY (or something fancier that
>>>> >>>> keeps an easily accessible database of machines you connect to) or ssh
>>>> >>>> in Terminal.app, you might as well be in *nix anyhow. And of course, in
>>>> >>>> the case of macOS, you actually ARE.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Back when I had to connect to many different machines at work
>>>> >>>I had a GUI I wrote hooked up to my Fvwm configuration.
>>>> >>>If I had a new server say "treerat", I'd go into my GUI and pick a
>>>> >>>shortcut letter for the server, probably "t" if it wasn't already used.
>>>> >>>I'd enter the "t", the server host name and some arguments to the
>>>> >>>terminal program (for example a background color pattern).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>The command line to start the terminal used the host name as a -name
>>>> >>>argument to the terminal program. That made it possible for Fvwm
>>>> >>>to tell one terminal from another.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Then I'd be able to type "shift t" to launch a new terminal on that
>>>> >>>host, or "meta t" to do the same thing iconified, or just "t" to warp to
>>>> >>>an existing terminal on treerat.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>That made it possible to access all my servers with a single root window
>>>> >>>keystroke.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>The GUI also built an Fvwm menu for server access so if I didn't want
>>>> >>>to devote a hot key I could still get to the server.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>I tried to create a similar workflow on Windows. Not a chance.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>I also tried to hot key frequently used menu entries on Windows.
>>>> >>>I think I was renaming things like "control panel" as '&C. Control Panel".
>>>> >>>I seem to remember that getting close but quickly fell apart.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Interesting question. Never tried to do anything like that with
>>>> >> Windows--might involve writing some real code.
>>>> >
>>>> >As far as I can tell, the Windows OS owns the root window.
>>>> >I'm not a windows expert but I couldn't find a way to write my own key bindings
>>>> >and Windows doesn't expose it for cusomization.
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm a big fan of root window key bindings.
>>>> >
>>>> >Typically the root window brings up menus and you navigate the menus
>>>> >with the arrow keys. So, I use the arrow keys to launch root window menus.
>>>>
>>>> The established way to do this in Windows is with third party
>>>> software. "Autohotkey" is the most common. There are also
>>>> brute-force methods--any decent gamer keyboard lets you set up
>>>> keyboard macros that are run on the keyboard's internal processor.
>>>
>>> I see, both the keyboard solution and autohotkeys are a macro
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> As I said, I had a bunch of terminals only distinguished by the host
>>> they were logged into and I could warp to them by the host they were logged into.
>>>
>>> I wonder what kind of macro would know how to do that?
>>>
>>> In X windows, each window is assigned a name class and resource which
>>> external programs and the window manager can use to access the window.
>>> The command line to start the terminal lets you assign a name.
>>>
>>> I've been looking at replacing my keyboard. It's a mechanical model
>>> with backlit keys. It still works but some of the lights are no longer
>>> working and the manufacturer bit the dust so I can no longer
>>> buy their LEDs.
>>>
>>> I was looking at a neat Logitech model but the pandemic hit and they
>>> pulled it from production. There are lots of LED models but most of
>>> them have serious light leakage around the outside of the key.
>>>
>>> The ones I'm considering now all have RGB, any light on the keyboard can
>>> be any color. Sort of nuts but there are Linux drivers for them.
>>> Many of them support macros, but I don't really need that.
>>
>> Right now, I'm finding that I don't have any of my systems set up for
>> remote access so I can't experiment until I do some reconfiguring. But
>> AutoHotkey does have a provision to activate a window by window
>> handle.
>>
>> With regard to keyboards, my three favorites are all Logitech. The
>> G910 is the one I use most of the time at home (I use a different one
>> at work but it's company-provided and the best thing I can say about
>> it is that it works). Before the G910 I had a K800--enough keys on it
>> finally lost the ability to retain a keycap that I replaced it with
>> the 910. I have a G915 which is a wonderful keyboard if you're
>> working on a desk or tabletop but the lack of any kind of rest for the
>> heel of the hand makes it less comfortable for use in one's lap, which
>> is now my normal working mode. All are backlit. The 800 is white
>> backlit, the other two are RGB. The 800 and 915 are wireless--the 800
>> needs a dongle, the 915 has a dongle but it's run what you brung--it
>> can connect using the dongle, Bluetooth, or I believe there's a way to
>> use it with wifi. They should all work with Linux, but making the 910
>> and 915 do tricks may require a specialized driver.
>
> I was looking at the 810 before they pulled it from production.
> I even had it on order. First they said it would be another month,
> then they canceled. Amazon says they have 2 in stock at $300 apiece
> but that's where I had the order first accepted then canceled.
>
> Refurbs are cheaper but I think I'll find something better.
>
> Isn't the 910 the one with no scroll lock LED?
There's definitely a scroll lock LED.
> I remember not liking they way it looked much but I was considering it.
> Then I think I saw no scroll lock LED. (I have software that lights
> the scroll lock key when I have unread email. I could have programmed
> another key to change color but the missing key annoyed me.)
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399373 is a reply to message #399371] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 17:27 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 16:34:06 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Isn't the 910 the one with no scroll lock LED?
>
> There's definitely a scroll lock LED.
Ah, I see them now. Not in the regular place but definitely there.
I wasn't too happy with the WASD markings but looking again the
the G1-G5 keys would be perfect for those custom keys I want to use.
Just where Sun put them.
Thanks again.
You sure seem to know your PC hardware.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399383 is a reply to message #399373] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 20:02 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:27:12 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 16:34:06 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Isn't the 910 the one with no scroll lock LED?
>>
>> There's definitely a scroll lock LED.
>
>
> Ah, I see them now. Not in the regular place but definitely there.
>
> I wasn't too happy with the WASD markings but looking again the
> the G1-G5 keys would be perfect for those custom keys I want to use.
> Just where Sun put them.
And they're programmable. You might have to program them on a windows
box but the program should stay.
> Thanks again.
> You sure seem to know your PC hardware.
Well, thank you. I've been building PCs for fun and profit for about
40 years now. More for fun lately than for profit.
I was thinking about another one this year, but after being annoyed
one too many times by no usable signal on my cheap 5 year old Chinese
phone (going to be a real problem shortly--they're changing the
authentication system at work so that you have to have a working
cellular connection) I decided to drop the hammer on a high end
Samsung to see if paying that kind of money for a phone actually makes
a difference. 8 cores, 3 GHz, 12 GB RAM, half an effing TERABYTE of
solid state disk (and another half on a microSD card smaller than the
nail on my pinkie finger), more money than I paid for a (used) Lincoln
Continental in 1969, and it's a damned _phone_. Which is big enough
to have a decent-sized antenna inside. I know it's an extravagance
but if I'm paying that kind of money anyway, I may as well get _all_
the goodies.
I'm told that von Neumann one chewed out a grad student for wasting
expensive CPU cycles having the machine do things (like compiling
code) that a human could do. I wonder what he would say about such
beast?
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399385 is a reply to message #399315] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 20:38 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
>> We've all probably got our own little peephole that we look at computing
>> history through.
>>
>> I remember discussion among my peers about automating dentist offices,
>> gas stations, etc. there was a huge untapped market there, but S/360
>> was priced way out of that market. Then in the 90s PCs started to enter
>> that market. That's when I saw the future of the mainframe.
>>
>> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant movement off
>> the mainframe. But of course there are plenty of large companies that
>> are still on mainframes and will remain there for the foreseeable
>> future.
>
> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech guys
> gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to catch on
> in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was X
> terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
>
> The only reason there weren't many PCs in that place was the director.
> Nice guy, but he'd taken against PCs for soem reason. He retired a year
> later, and the tech guy suddenly found PCs everywhere. Not many X
> terminals, even as PCs.
>
> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
> command prompt windows it could display).
>
That’s about half of the way I operate.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399386 is a reply to message #399321] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 20:38 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>
> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
> change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
> my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
> change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
> was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>
People say the plethora of window managers is a plus, I tend to doubt it.
As far as frequent changes, I thought that Ubuntu moving by default from
Gnome2 to Gnome3 was a big mistake. I installed a new release and it was
hate at first sight. I hunted around and found Mate, which is still Gnome2,
although I guess there are several, like Mint, that are as well. Mate seems
to stay the dame from release to release.
Developers seem to like to change things, maybe not “just because they
can”, but maybe just because someone thinks they have a better idea without
considering how users actually work.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399391 is a reply to message #399331] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 20:53 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>
>>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>>
>>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>
>> Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>> terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>> (You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>> I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>
> This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
> that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
> not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>
> And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
> somebody shot in the leg.
Now they say it’s the “do everything” OS. It runs Android apps, Linux
programs, and Windows programs.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399392 is a reply to message #399391] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 20:57 |
|
|
Originally posted by: J. Clarke
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 17:53:45 -0700, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 09:26:51 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-09-05, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>>>> > command prompt windows it could display).
>>>>
>>>> That does seem to be how most hardcore *nix geeks use X.
>>>
>>> Where I worked, we mostly used Sun Workstations but we had a few X
>>> terminals. The X terminals were just as useful as the workstations.
>>> (You could go to any number of other machines for computing.)
>>> I got the impression the X terminals weren't cheap enough to catch on.
>>
>> This has been the problem with GUI terminals right along. A terminal
>> that can display a GUI has all the pieces to just be a computer so why
>> not just put an OS on it and use it as such?
>>
>> And before anybody says "Chrombook", ChromeOS is just Linux that
>> somebody shot in the leg.
>
> Now they say it’s the “do everything” OS. It runs Android apps, Linux
> programs, and Windows programs.
I've never seen a claim that it runs Windows programs. It runs
Microsoft cloud applications, which is a rather different thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399398 is a reply to message #399386] |
Sat, 05 September 2020 21:58 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes:
>>
>> As for consistency, I notice all the mainstream desktop managers
>> change with every release. My WM, Fvwm only changes when I change
>> my configuration file. Fvwm gets new features, it just doesn't force
>> change with every release. My desktop is pretty much the same as it
>> was 20 years ago. That's consistent.
>
> People say the plethora of window managers is a plus, I tend to doubt it.
> As far as frequent changes, I thought that Ubuntu moving by default from
> Gnome2 to Gnome3 was a big mistake. I installed a new release and it was
> hate at first sight. I hunted around and found Mate, which is still Gnome2,
> although I guess there are several, like Mint, that are as well. Mate seems
> to stay the dame from release to release.
>
> Developers seem to like to change things, maybe not “just because they
> can”, but maybe just because someone thinks they have a better idea without
> considering how users actually work.
I agree, I just don't see the constant change.
I don't see a problem with new features, but I'd expect to only see the
new feature if I turn it on.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399405 is a reply to message #399386] |
Sun, 06 September 2020 02:10 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 17:38:37 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> People say the plethora of window managers is a plus, I tend to doubt it.
It is if you can find one you like - I did a long time ago and I'm
still using it today.
> As far as frequent changes, I thought that Ubuntu moving by default from
I don't get frequent changes, because the environment I choose is
stable.
> Gnome2 to Gnome3 was a big mistake. I installed a new release and it was
Following fashion is usually a big mistake.
> hate at first sight. I hunted around and found Mate, which is still
> Gnome2, although I guess there are several, like Mint, that are as well.
Mint is a distribution, Mate is a desktop. One option for Mint is
Mate.
> Mate seems to stay the dame from release to release.
I don't like having the installation decide on my window manager, I
like to choose it.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: When did mainframes lose commercial dominance? [message #399410 is a reply to message #399385] |
Sun, 06 September 2020 04:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Bob Eager
On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 17:38:36 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 2020 06:55:08 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>>> We've all probably got our own little peephole that we look at
>>> computing history through.
>>>
>>> I remember discussion among my peers about automating dentist offices,
>>> gas stations, etc. there was a huge untapped market there, but S/360
>>> was priced way out of that market. Then in the 90s PCs started to
>>> enter that market. That's when I saw the future of the mainframe.
>>>
>>> I'd guess 2000 is about right for the start of significant movement
>>> off the mainframe. But of course there are plenty of large companies
>>> that are still on mainframes and will remain there for the foreseeable
>>> future.
>>
>> Around 1990 (in a university computer centre) one of the senior tech
>> guys gave a presentation. In it, he said that PCs were never going to
>> catch on in a big way (i.e. one on every desk) but that the future was
>> X terminals. He demonstrated how wonderful they were.
>>
>> The only reason there weren't many PCs in that place was the director.
>> Nice guy, but he'd taken against PCs for soem reason. He retired a year
>> later, and the tech guy suddenly found PCs everywhere. Not many X
>> terminals, even as PCs.
>>
>> (I have to say that his idea of an X terminal's usefulness was how many
>> command prompt windows it could display).
>>
>>
> That’s about half of the way I operate.
And me, actually. But not totally. Much as I was happy enough with mh and
rn, I prefer Claws and Pan!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
