Slashdot Mirror


Retired Mainframe Pros Lured Back Into Workforce

itwbennett writes "Businesses that cut experienced mainframe administrators in an effort to cut costs inadvertently created a skills shortage that is coming back to bite them. Chris O'Malley, CA's mainframe business executive VP, says that mainframe workers were let go because 'it had no immediate effect and the organizations didn't expect to keep mainframes around.' But businesses have kept mainframes around and now they are struggling to find engineers. Prycroft Six managing director Greg Price, a mainframe veteran of some 45 years, put it this way: 'Mainframes are expensive, ergo businesses want to go to cheaper platforms, but [those platforms] have a lot of packaged overheads. If you do a total cost of ownership, the mainframe comes out cheaper, but since the costs of a mainframe are immediately obvious, it is hard to get it past the bean-counters of an organization.'"

12 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Not a new phenomenon by ls671 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As early as 2002, I started to half-jokingly tell young co-workers that were asking that they should learn COBOL as a way to insure them a prosperous career. ;-) Back then, most schools were removing or had removed COBOL programming from their course list.

    I was half-jokingly telling them that by 2015 they should be earning 150-200K a year as a simple COBOL developer ;-)))

    See this article from last year saying basically the same thing :

    http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/08/07/231774/cobol-programmer-shortage-starts-to-bite.htm

    Note: I am to old to start to learn COBOL, this is stuff for young people... ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Not a new phenomenon by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Funny

      But bloody hell, if I can make six figures writing cobol, I'll grab myself a cobol book and quit this programming job. A sucky day job isn't so bad when it means you can retire a decade earlier than otherwise.

      My advice for new programmers has been exactly this: learn COBOL, study mainframes, move to large cities, make big bucks. Sure, you'll want to gouge your eyes out with a fork, but then you'll be able to afford to have robotic eyes grafted back in!

      As a second, I recommend that they learn Unix skills, c, and databases. Still lots of money there, and your original eyeballs will last longer. (It's the path I chose, and I do quite well for myself)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    2. Re:Not a new phenomenon by ls671 · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Why would you higher a "Cobol" coder to program Cobol

      Because most "web programmers" we know of do not know how to spell. Our COBOL programming interface (terminal based) doesn't have auto-completion or auto-correction features so misspelled words cause errors only when the programmer hits the compile key.

      Compiler errors are cryptic and it takes a lot of time to find and fix the misspellings. So even if the logic of the code was flawless (for which we also have doubts), simple spelling errors cost us too much money thus making HIRING web developers a non viable alternative for us.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Not a new phenomenon by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      COBOL is an odd beast, with no pointer/references and barely even has the concept of arrays. It makes processing a stream of input records to create a stream of output records, with occasional DB updates along the way, very straightforward. It's fine at text-oriented work and formatting as well (I bet it would work fine to implement an AJAX backend). Anything else, not so much.

      MULTIPLY FOO BY BAR GIVING QUX. - Actual math syntax (never used, I expect, but humorous).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Re:Here is to.... by 1c3mAn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Mainframe does it job and does it well. Nothing comes close in Data Throughput Processing with the amount of reliability that a mainframe brings.

    Computer 'Experts' have been saying that the mainframe is dead since the early 90s, but here we are 20 years later and I still have a job programming for it, and I don't see it going away anytime soon. Small to mid-level servers just don't have the capacity to deal with the growing about of data generated. Fedex does in the neighborhood of 2 billion transactions a day, you cant just wipe together a Beowulf Cluster and think it will do the job reliably.

    Or the better question is. How much do you trust the Federal Reserve to run all its processing on Windows machines. Or Wall Street. Ever consider if a transaction there is 'lost' because a windows blue screen? Even linux machines arent as dependable as a Mainframe. The IBM Z boxes actually have their own redundant parts included in them already. Not to mention that it will phone in its own tech support request.

    Mainframes are not for everyone, but they do fulfill their job well when you do need them.

    There are also enough tools out there like SOA so that even Java "Kids" can write applications for them easily.

    Mainframes run the world.

  3. Re:Here is to.... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh, why?

    Mainframes are fucking rock solid, reliable pieces of equipment.

    They do the damned job like nobody's business.
    The only issue with mainframes is that we haven't kept the people along with the software we chose to run on them decades ago.

  4. Oblig. Ref. by dugrrr · · Score: 4, Funny

    from BSG: "Any return to COBOL will exact a price paid in blood."

  5. Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry by JPLemme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And don't forget that in COBOL, not only is all of your data global to your program, in a typical batch cycle all of the data is global to ALL of the programs.

    I used to hate discovering that field XYZ was being modified in jobs that were completely unrelated to XYZ, because the programmer was too lazy to check the appropriate code out of the repository. "Why bother? I can make the change right here and it'll work just fine!"

    My favorite line was "Being on a COBOL dev team is like living in a dorm."

  6. Re:I wonder... by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Sam? Sam, this is Frank, CIO back at Engulf and Devour. How is the transition away from the mainframe going? Well, listen. That's what I'm calling about. Yes, yes, I know you're retired, but the cloud isn't working out quite as we'd planned, what with the economy and all, and the kids are having a bit of trouble keeping ol' Betsy going. Yes, I did read that memo you wrote, and it turns out you had some good points. Listen, would you be up for a bit of consulting? Say, $100/hr, 100 hours minimum? Oh. That much? And a car and driver? Well, I'm afraid my budget won't quite stretch that far...No! Please don't hang up! Let me talk to the CEO and get back to you, ok? Please?"

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  7. Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

    no worse than C

    Except for C having "+" "-" and "=" instead of "MULTIPLY units AND cost GIVING total"

    If Perl is the archetypal "write only" language, COBOL is the one true "read only" language.

    people are crazy not to get into this field

    The whole point of TFA was that entry level jobs where people could "get in" went away, then all the senior staff retired or expired, leaving the companies with nothing.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  8. The modern mainframe - Who cares about COBOL? by Ken+Hall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I went from UNIX in the late 1970's to mainframe zOS (MVS/OS) to VM and Linux on the mainframe. Anything you can do on an Intel box (or a room full of them), you can do on a mainframe, cheaper and more reliably, once you get past the first big financial hit. I've seen the so-called cost studies that supposedly show the room full of Intel white boxes are cheaper. Once you factor in the "unseen" costs, like the article says, and get past the startup, the mainframe looks VERY good.

    Current mainframes aren't what people remember from the past. They're (physically) small, agile, and well suited to certain workloads (can you do 256 concurrent DMA transfers on an Intel box?). The problem is, the only companies that seem to be able to justify them for new workloads are ones that already have them for legacy work. IBM hasn't shown much interest in the low-end of the market (sell small boxen, then discontinue them, push licensed emulation, then kill it, etc).

    Our biggest problem is finding people who know the technologies. I give classes to our Linux SA's on this, and they're usually surprised at what the current zSeries boxes can do.

    Don't misunderstand, there are plenty of applications where Intel boxes make sense, I work both sides of the fence. I just hate to see mainframes maligned as "obsolete" by people who don't understand what they are now.

  9. Re:Here is to.... by AvitarX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I bet google loses lots of data. They certainly have had massive amounts of down time (by main frame standards).

    search from 2 places, different results. They don't have highly critical data, so they can sloppily store and syncronize as needed. A liberty that Fedex does not.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg