Slashdot Mirror


Gene Amdahl, Pioneer of Mainframe Computing, Dies At 92 (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times reports that Dr. Gene Amdahl, who played a crucial role in developing the IBM System/360 series mainframes and formulated Amdahl's law, has died at the age of 92. "The 360 series was not one computer but a family of compatible machines. Computers in the series used processors of different speeds and power, yet all understood a common language. This allowed customers to purchase a smaller system knowing they could migrate to a larger, more powerful machine if their needs grew, without reprogramming the application software. IBM's current mainframes can still run some System/360 applications. ... Dr. Amdahl is remembered at IBM as an intellectual leader who could get different strong-minded groups to reach agreement on technical issues."

78 comments

  1. Parallel RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You were quoted for decades during life and will be quoted after death for a long time. That is the everlasting life after death, with an almost infinite speedup.

    1. Re:Parallel RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss Dr. Gene. His insane ramblings were truly an inspiration.

  2. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And just how many systems are running today which are still compatible with the IBM System/360?

    I can't count how many retail stores I've been in who still bring up an IBM terminal emulator to do the real work, and I've known several places which have had mainframes running since the 60s. Every now and then you swap out a part while it's running.

    That's a body of work ... safe travels Dr. Amdahl.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anandtech just posted a good review of the Power 8 systems, which if they are running the i OS (AS400) are compatible: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9567/the-power-8-review-challenging-the-intel-xeon-

    2. Re:Wow ... by limaCAT76 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And just how many systems are running today which are still compatible with the IBM System/360?

      Good question, on the upside nobody will be able to bully System/360 admins to run Systemd.

    3. Re:Wow ... by rsmoody · · Score: 2

      Agreed.
      We still use a terminal emulator where I work in a payment industry.

      Nearly every job I have ever worked had either bigiron or AS 400 there somewhere, banking industry, AutoZone (huge bigiron operation), Circuit City (the entire checkout system was AS 400, Best Buy (for their "green screen" most people I worked with had no idea how to use it, but those that did could run circles around the web site), debt collection agency (aka den of sin, what a horrid place to have worked), Whirlpool, it was there somewhere. Ok, I don't know if Taco Bell had one and when I was an airplane mechanic we didn't have one (hell, we didnt' have a computer, but we did have a lawn that was very well protected).

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every IBM Mainframe since the release of System 360 is capable of natively running software written for the S360 - 52 years ago! So, to answer your question, I don't know how many but every mainframe shop is likely to run a few lines of code from OS/360, somewhere. Many financial institutions for instance run core banking functions which are programs with development cycles starting some 40-50 years ago.

    5. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of Z server shops are starting to use a lot of Z/Linux so I wouldn't be too hopeful.

    6. Re:Wow ... by niff · · Score: 2

      As far as In know, SABRE still runs on System/360 today.

      It was created in the 50's, migrated to System/360 in the 70's, and is still the central system where all bookings of all airplanes are registered, and where travel agents from everywhere in the world can check for availability, make reservations, etc.
      The main interface is a console. I've seen several attempts to create GUI's but they can't fully replace the efficient text-based interface that exists to enter commands and see results.

      If you ever fly on a plane, your booking went through that system, no matter where on this planet you live, or where you went.
      There's an impressive number of transactions going on in that system, with lots of clients and lots of data in there.

    7. Re:Wow ... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

      System/360? No. It runs on modern System Z hardware. System Z is capable of running System/360 application programs (but not OS's).

    8. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sadly SLES12 for z is infected with systemd. I begged them not to but they wouldn't listen. That's why we're running SLES11 until end of support in 2019. It's my hope that by then they will have realized what a giant clusterfuck systemd is and Mr Pottering will have been booted from the Linux community once and for all! So our zEC12 doesn't run systemd but it might have to eventually.

    9. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck modded this as "funny"?

    10. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just how many systems are running today which are still compatible with the IBM System/360?

      Good question, on the upside nobody will be able to bully System/360 admins to run Systemd.

      Butt hurt much?

    11. Re:Wow ... by matfud · · Score: 1

      There are a number of GDS's now (Global distribution systems) derived from reservation systems but most still provide a terminal mode. (The primary mode) I spent a few years scraping the screens to get information for a booking website. When the software was originally developed it was the easiest/only way to get the data you needed and to book flights /hotels/stuff. Plus getting exchange rates, flight routing, connections and paying per query.

      Most still seem to run on IBM machines somewhere in the background. And it is fun handling the "cards" especially trying to add all the required information into 32 character people names and spilling into the random additional info fields to store it correctly (along with all the other crap that is now mandated)
      Amadeus
      Travelport

    12. Re:Wow ... by matfud · · Score: 1

      Mind you a company I worked at three or four years ago still had Amdahl machines in a basement somewhere doing something. Again travel related.

    13. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Power8 and System/Z are completely different hardware, with different OS.
      The only thing they have in common is that there is a large overlap in the CPU design teams.
      Some mainframe instructions are really complex and make x86 instructions look fairly simple.

    14. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Payless Shoe Source Corporate HQ in Topeka, KS still had a working OS/360 and OS/390 in the back of the building as of 2007. It was where some younger devs were allowed to test. I don't know if they are still there, or if it was all migrated to the z/OS platform. So, in essence, there is probably some code that runs Payless shoes that was developed on 360 that is in production today.

    15. Re:Wow ... by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      I recall reading an article in Time Magazine about Gene (a LONG time ago) describing his hobby of tunneling in his back yard. At times he'd dig it with a spoon. He found the task relaxing and rewarding. His tunnels were quite well-built (reinforced).

      He was quite an interesting guy. Also an early adopter to liquid cooling (yes, there were others).

      RIP Gene.

      You taught us how to think outside of the box.

    16. Re:Wow ... by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Aw crap. My mistake.

      That was Seymour Cray.

  3. Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was told the only reason we have computers today is because of space.

    Now you're telling me a company called Internatioal "Business" Machines had some sort of weird 32 bit computer family in the 1960s?

    What for? I was told computers are only useful for space, and the only reason we have them now is because of NASA spinoffs?

    1. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was told the only reason we have computers today is because of space.

      Were you? Or did you just make that up so you could post scoffingly on Slashdot to make yourself look clever?

      Posting AC so as not to direct any more eyes towards your post.

    2. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right here:

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8310945&cid=50905437

      "Apollo was well worth the money spent on it. Not the lunar rocks, but the many other scientific advances advances [telegraph.co.uk] that resulted from engineering a Moon landing. Including the computer you are using."

      You want more?

      The space loons have such a skewed, twisted, fact-free simplistic understanding of.. well, pretty much everything. Otherwise they wouldn't be Space Nutters.

    3. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we didn't go to space, we wouldn't have Facebook. That is why we need to spend trillions on space exploration!

    4. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Space and military spending did push research on integrated circuits (IC's) because they were the biggest customers IC's, looking for weight savings above other factors. The IBM 360 used mostly stand-alone transistors and sometimes magnetic core memory (iron donuts on a wire grid).

      IBM was skeptical of the reliability of both the hardware and supply chain of IC's at the time of the 360. IC factories were not yet ready for mass manufacturing. But IBM gradually introduced IC's in later models.

    5. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Correction: biggest customers of IC's

    6. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the link in the /. post you quoted? #2 on the list:

      2. Computer microchip: modern microchips descend from integrated circuits used in the Apollo Guidance Computer.

    7. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply not true. The IC's were invented BEFORE. THEN they were used for space. Do your own research instead of believing willy-nilly some propaganda.

    8. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well sure, if you consider NOR gates to be the "ancestor" of your modern multicore CPU.

      It does seem a bit silly to make this claim, when the first microprocessor appeared 2 years after the Eagle landed.

    9. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More lies from the space nutcase crowd. IBM did amazing research on integrated circuits but it would be a waste to try to lead a horse to water, or a Nutter to knowledge.

      Say, why would IBM invent this:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Solid_Logic_Technology

    10. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I recall it, IBM was using SLT (Solid Logic Technology) and ASLT (Advanced Solid Logic Technology) in the 360. They were early forms of thin-film circuits, the predecessors to integrated circuits. See https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/vintage_4506VV3081.html for a photo of a SLT module with the cover off, or http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/logic/SY22-2798-2_LogicBlocks_AutomatedLogicDiagrams_SLT,SLD,ASLT,MST_TO_Oct71.pdf for the IBM manual that covers SLT, SLD, ASLT and MST, as well as their automated logic diagrams. I saw lots of these modules when I used to work on mainframe systems in the mid and late 1960s.

    11. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you see, it was absolutely vital for a test pilot to wear space underwear in order for engineers and scientists to invent integrated circuits. Computers had no use whatsover before.

    12. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your second post does not support the claim "the only reason we have computers".
      Note that you used the word "only". The use of the word "only" is what makes your claim a false statement.

    13. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean before. The F-14 CADC.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Air_Data_Computer

      And even before that, the Autonetics D37 was a flight computer... But apparently, computers didn't exist before. It's amazing that all the people with the right knowledge just spontaneously generated from the vacuum just in time for Apollo.

      Wow, what a coincidence!

    14. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by mike.mondy · · Score: 1

      ... Now you're telling me a company called Internatioal "Business" Machines had some sort of weird 32 bit computer family in the 1960s?

      I didn't read TFA, but I'm guessing the 360 was one of the first or second generation of 32-bit machines. Decades ago 32-bit wasn't the thing. A lot of the bigger older machines used 36 bit data types. That allowed integers up to 10 decimal digits long to be represented so that these new electronic computers could compete with the 10 digit mechanical computers that preceded them. Later, the advantages of using powers of two won out over that compatibility.

    15. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Including the computer you are using."

      "Including". What is the difficulty here? He was claiming all kinds of benefits, advances, and breakthroughs!! NONE of which would have happened without space apparently! You can't lawyer your way out of this, a significant percentage of space loons really believe the only reason I am using a computer now is because of space!

      Computers, you see, were entirely useless and unheard of in 1961. Then we filled a giant metal tube with kerosene, and spinoffs blew out the rear!

      It boggles the mind that we don't do that again for curing cancer, let's say. It worked so well the first time!

      It's a good thing that giant missile-shaped things have nothing to do with nuclear bombs and Cold War stuff.

      Plus I wonder about Gene Amdahl, what inspired him to write "a thesis titled A Logical Design of an Intermediate Speed Digital Computer and creating his first computer, the WISC. He then went straight from Wisconsin to a well-paid position at IBM in June 1952." (wiki it yourself).??????????

      1952!?? But that was even before Sputnik!

      So... Space did nothing. We were well under way to computerizing the planet way before the pyromaniacs made their speech.

    16. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by niks42 · · Score: 1

      If you're working on data bus width or data element width, I think you can count S/360 as 32 bit since some models implemented a 32-bit memory data bus(except it did support 64-bit floating point) but it was always limited in address space to less than that.

    17. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, but I was going more for a sarcastic vibe by pointing out that 32 bit computers existed already before anyone walked on the Moon. Kind of odd given that we're told we only have computers because of space. Were did these 32 bit computers come from?

      Aliens. I'll bet it was aliens.

      In a way, the Space Nutters are denialists, they think people are only smart and creative when space is involved. That's as offensive and silly as saying the Egyptians couldn't have possibly built the Pyramids. It must have been aliens!

      People couldn't possibly invent computers on their own... sigh...

    18. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by bws111 · · Score: 2

      The 360 was the first machine to use an 8-bit byte as the unit of memory addressability. In that single byte you could store either 2 BCD digits, a text character, or a binary number. Prior to the 360 machine were more special-purpose; they were good for either decimal math (financials), or text, or binary math, but not all three at the same time. The register size of the 360 was 4 bytes. The address size was 24 bits, allowing 16MB of addressing.

      Decimal math (BCD) is still heavily used in financial applications.

    19. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NONE of which would have happened without space apparently!

      What the fuck is wrong with you?

      None of the articles you link to make the claim that computers exist "only because of space."
      None of the articles say "NONE of which would have happened without space apparently"
      It's the word "ONLY" that you are using that does not exist in the articles.
      You are the one saying that, not other people. No one else has said that computers exist ONLY because of space program.

      I've never met anyone who thinks that computers began with the space program, and I've certainly never read an article that says computers exist ONLY because of the space program.

      You can't lawyer your way out of this, a significant percentage of space loons really believe the only reason I am using a computer now is because of space!

      You are making up shit that is not true.
      Slashdot is infested with space nutters.
      Have you not noticed that of all the space nuttters on Slashdot NOT A SINGLE ONE has claimed that computers began with the space program?
      You are making up shit that is not true.

    20. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      The USA and the USSR were in a "space race". The USSR, typically for the Russian mindset, had rocket engines with pure brute force that could easily shove heavy payloads into space.

      The USA hadn't invested as much work into powerful engines, so to compensate, they made a virtue of micro-miniaturization. It probably helped that a lot of the groundwork technology (such as the transistor) had been developed using US resources (AT&T and the feds go way back).

      The computer you are using today isn't some fuse-blowing vacuum tube behemoth in large part because this self-same miniaturization found its way back into the commercial sphere. I have an old flip-flop IC that I bought from Radio Shack that says "nasa" right on the case, so in some cases, apparently quite literally so.

      No, the space program didn't bring us velcro or even Tang, but it did affect computer technology development even though relatively few computers of the day were actually used in the space program.

    21. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by WmHBlair · · Score: 1

      | The IBM 360 used mostly stand-alone transistors and sometimes magnetic core memory (iron donuts on a wire grid).

      Sometimes? Nope. Essentially exclusively. All but two (individual machines) in the IBM System/360 model line used magnetic ferrite-core memory exclusively. The singular exception was the Model 95 [360/95] processor. IBM built only two, for NASA: one was installed at the Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and the other at the Goddard Space Flight Center at Greenbelt, Maryland. Even so, the The Model 95 still used a hybrid main memory technology: each had only 1MB of thin-film memory, but also 4MB of conventional ferrite-core memory.
           

    22. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, fine. Make that first commercial microprocessor (I'm talking about the 4004).

      Anyway, CADC came after Apollo (designed in 1970), and as you point out, a lot of work was being done with IC development outside of what NASA was using.

      It's absurd to think we wouldn't have our microcomputers if not for Apollo.

    23. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget how the microcode was stored. But also don't forget other fun IBM storage technologies:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1360

      You know, a terabit of storage in the 1960s. I guess it was for space because computers only exist because of space. Oh no! Wait!!!

      " online archival storage system for large data centers"

      Centers? Plural? In the 1960s? What sorcery is this?

      "In the mid-1950s IBM's San Jose lab was contracted by the CIA to provide a system to retrieve vast numbers of printed documents."

      What? But computers are only useful for space and the only reason anyone put a cent into computers was because of space!??

    24. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decimal math (BCD) is still heavily used in financial applications.

      Aren't they moving towards decimal FP (ieee754p if memory serves) based on DPD encoding as implemented in Z and Power?
      With 34 significant digits in quad precision and an exponent range going from -6000 to +6000, they should encounter practical limits, fixed decimal is slower (only memory operations) and limited to 31 digits.

      Double precision decimal FP only gives 16 digits which may be a problem to express the federal debt down to the penny, but 34 digit gives enough headroom.

    25. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The transistors were not "stand alone". IBM glued them and the other parts onto ceramic backplates, called "hybrid" IC technology. Not quite discrete parts, not quite IC's, somewhere in between.

    26. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "None of the articles you link to make the claim that computers exist "only because of space.""

      They shouldn't, since the only people claiming that we only have computers because of space are the Space Nutters posting their shit for brains delusions here.

      So I don't know what's going on with your reading comprehension tonight, but you might want to take a break there buddy.

      Here, read this

      http://www.computerhistory.org...

      And show me where we had to go to space to invent ICs, or how Apollo is the only reason I have this computer in front of me.

      "Have you not noticed that of all the space nuttters on Slashdot NOT A SINGLE ONE has claimed that computers began with the space program?"

      You're a deceitful little monkey.

      " the many other scientific advances advances [telegraph.co.uk] that resulted from engineering a Moon landing. Including the computer you are using.""

      How else can this be interpreted? Is English not your native tongue?

    27. Re:Wait wait wait just a minute here by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Okay, I was wrong about individual transistors. But I'm not sure those qualify as "integrated circuits". But let's not get into a terminology game, as space and military spending on IC technology was a big driver of IC R&D. I remember Intel stating that somewhere, but cannot currently find the source.

      Making small circuits was more expensive than "medium" circuits at the time, like SLT, such that it was more economical for most commercial computers to use the "medium" circuits as they were cheaper and more plentiful than the smaller ones of the time, being the smaller ones were cutting edge with cutting edge problems to be worked out. Aerospace, on the other hand, paid a premium for reduced size. I imagine they had to throw away a lot of attempts to get one "good chip".

  4. ABC computer company by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had a recurring nightmare in the '80s (after Amdahl and Cray had spun out on their own): That Gene Amdahl, Gordon Bell (DEC's PDP 5, PDP 8 instruction set, PDP 11), and Seymour Cray (CDC, Cray Computers) would get together, found an "ABC Computer Company", and spend the next decades having architectural arguments but never producing a product.

    Two of them are gone now, and the world is poorer for it.

    (Ever wonder why the cabinets of IBM computers in the mid 20th century were the size they were? One of Amdahl's ideas: After seeing a facility have to tear out a wall to install an early machine (univac?) with the spectre of having to do it again to get it out some day, he designed his machines in modules that each just fit through the door and into the car of a standard elevator (with a bit of clearance for padding and room for someone to push the floor buttons. That meant lots of expensive custom cables and connectors, but still far cheaper than tearing up buildings. B-) )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:ABC computer company by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      They weren't the same size as telco racks (i.e. 19")?

    2. Re:ABC computer company by Arnold+Reinhold · · Score: 2

      They weren't the same size as telco racks (i.e. 19")?

      No they were not. IBM had it's own standards for mechanical packaging. But my recollection is that IBM's requirement that all its products fit through a standard 29" door predated the 360 line and was mandated by their sales department, who never wanted to lose a sale because the product could not get into a building.

    3. Re:ABC computer company by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      IBM had it's own standards for mechanical packaging. But my recollection is that IBM's requirement that all its products fit through a standard 29" door predated the 360 line and was mandated by their sales department, who never wanted to lose a sale because the product could not get into a building.

      Yep. The predecessor 14xx and 70x/709x series all had cabinets that size, too. Also the 30x series, including the RAMAC (first moving-head disk drive - name is an acronym for RAndoM ACcess).

      The person (faculty at the University of Michigan) who told me about the box size (back in the late '60s) attributed it to Amdahl (who also predates the 360 by quite a bit), but perhaps he did inherit the design principle rather than originate it.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  5. FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Amdahl also coined the term "FUD" meaning a company trash talking another.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt#Definition
    "...FUD was first defined with its specific current meaning by Gene Amdahl the same year, 1975, after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products..."

    The point is that people has always been trash talking others, but IBM was the first company that systematically employed FUD on every level in the company.

  6. Lost a good one today by Zeromous · · Score: 1

    His imprint remains on my life to this day. I probably owe this guy more than a beer. Cheers Dr. Amdahl!

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    1. Re:Lost a good one today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I probably owe this guy more than a beer.

      I suggest Dead Guy Ale :)

  7. And the Next Day they buried him face down nine... by laurencetux · · Score: 4, Funny

    edge first

    so does this count as unscheduled down time??

  8. Memories by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

    Brings back memories. Learned computing on an Amdahl 470 V/6 (the second one made, I think) back in the days of punch cards and standing in line at the input window...

  9. Cause of death: by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    Hang gliding accident.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  10. Re:And the Next Day they buried him face down nine by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    That should be TWELVE edge first. Nine edge was for the old card sorters.

  11. Re:And the Next Day they buried him face down nine by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Oops. My memory played tricks on me - it's twelve edge OUT, not twelve edge first. My apologies.

  12. Re:And the Next Day they buried him face down nine by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    The exact expiration date and time for each specimen of the current model of human remains unknown. He lived a nice long life and contributed to mankind's technological progress. Thanks.

  13. Re:And the Next Day they buried him face down nine by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    jargon file has it as nine edge first (ref eighty column mind)

  14. Sad news ... Gene Amdahl, dead at 92 by idontgno · · Score: 2

    Just heard some sad news on talk radio - Computer designer Gene Amdahl was found dead in his Palo Alto home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to geek culture. Truly an American icon.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Sad news ... Gene Amdahl, dead at 92 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those god damn immigrants.

  15. Re:And the Next Day they buried him face down nine by bosef1 · · Score: 1

    Amdahl finally reached his limit.

    Too soon? ... I'll let myself out.

  16. S322 Abend - out of time by niks42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, what a good innings and what a man who helped bring computing technology to where it is today. There must be some way that we can immortalise people like he and Seymour Cray. I worry that people will forget the legacy that mainframe computing architecture has left us; if we knew more about the history of computing architecture, we might stop re-inventing wheels.

    1. Re:S322 Abend - out of time by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The first wheel was made of stone and mostly square and broke after a half mile.
      The second wheel was more round and maybe made it for a mile before it broke.
      The next wheel was made of wood and it wore out and broke.
      Then we invented spokes and these would accept greater lateral acceleration forces.
      Then we invented lining them with metal so that they could last longer.
      Then we invented...

      Get the hint? Nostalgia is nice but reinventing the wheel has a proven track record.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:S322 Abend - out of time by bws111 · · Score: 1

      No hint to get, since not a single one of those is a reinvention of the wheel. Those are all refinements or improvements on the wheel.

    3. Re:S322 Abend - out of time by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Reinvent is, according to the dictionary, to make over completely. You'd not argue that going from, say, a stone wheel to a wooden wheel is not a complete makeover? If you'd argue that then, it'd be really tough to argue that anything that was the original complaint could also fall into that category. You'd have to be pretty damned picky to say that making a new version, in a new format, with the same goal in mind is not a reinvention. You might just as well say that atoms have been combined before and are not inventions at all when they're combined in new ways.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:S322 Abend - out of time by bws111 · · Score: 1

      But the definition of wheel is 'a circular object that revolves on an axle and is fixed below a vehicle or other object to enable it to move easily over the ground.' None of your examples invented or even improved on that concept, so they didn't reinvent the wheel.

      Don't reinvent the wheel doesn't mean don't make improvements to something, it means don't waste time coming up with a brilliant new idea when the thing already exists and is (or should be) well known.

    5. Re:S322 Abend - out of time by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No, they've now made it nearly perfectly circular, with spokes, and out of alloys. I dare say it has been re-invented. Unless you'd care to say that re-writing code that does the same thing isn't re-inventing as well, that is. I mean it is, by definition, doing the same thing or improving on the concept. (I'd certainly say that going from one wheel type to another is certainly a qualified but I'm sure you'll try to figure out something trivial to argue.) They've reinvented it, over and over and over again.

      Ah well... Feel free to drool on yourself a bit more. We're used to it around here.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  17. Re:run a few lines of code from OS/360 by WmHBlair · · Score: 2

    I suspect that one class of software the AC was referring to was the various shops' own (whether they developed it themselves or purchased it and then customized it, which was very common in those days) [business] applications software. In that case, the assertion is certainly true and, the larger the company, the more often that will be the case, simply because there was a (then) huge investment in COBOL or PL/I (or even Assembler) programs in the System/360 era, which was replaced, but not that quickly, with the System/370 machines (particularly the Models 155, 165 and 158 and 168). But there's another class of System/360 software: all the lines of code that constituted OS/360 itself and all of its mostly free subsystems. There were some licensed program products that IBM had just started to charge for, such as IMS and CICS, that did run on OS/360, so I will include them as well. It is my estimate that more than 25% of all the lines of code that were ever included in OS/360 and its subsystems still exist in z/OS or the current generation of those subsystems. A lot of OS/360 code was of course replaced, rewritten, or discarded as it became OS/VS2 SVS and then OS/VS2 MVS, MVS/XA, MVS/ESA, OS/390, and finally z/OS. But much of that code still remains [in the source] as can be seen by anyone who can look and knows what to look for and where to look. Two major OS/360 subsystems, ASP and HASP, now called JES3 and JES2 respectively, still contain more than 25% of their original lines of code that once ran on a System/360 running OS/360. I still have object decks of PL/I programs compiled in 1967 that will still bind (link) and run on z/OS Version 2 Release 2 -- that's 48 year-old code. Not only that, but at one of my old shops, they still run Assembler and a small number of COBOL programs that were last compiled (and last linked, even) in 1973! The programs work, and there has never been a need to change them. That is rare, of course, but not unheard of and I suspect more common that many insiders would ordinarily think.

  18. as Jesus once said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we squander trillions of dollars on space exploration, we don't have that money to spend bombing the shit out of brown people.
    Just sayin'

  19. It was a good run by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    R.I.P

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  20. South Dakota native by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1

    A few years a go, I read a few books about computer history. I suspect that I saw his name, but I don't remember any mention of his being from South Dakota. Being a SD native, this is nice. I see he also served in the US Navy during WWII.

    Another name to add alongside Ernest Lawrence and Joe Foss.

  21. Telco racks were 23" by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I've been at various parts of the Bell System and AT&T for some decades now. There were years when it was much easier to get leftover 23" telco racks for my lab than buy new 19" racks for computers, so we had a lot of extra rails for conversion. The more serious problem with that in recent years is that computer racks are generally deeper than telco racks, so not everything would fit in the cabinets (or we'd have to take the back door off.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  22. I Worked For Dr. Gene... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for Dr. Gene from 1977 to 1981, doing software support for Amdahl 470 customers. Good company, good people, good machines...good times and memories. Godspeed, Dr. Gene.

  23. Thanks Dr Amdahl by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I studied your law enough to build on it. I never met you however you influenced me and I appreciate the inspiration. May you have ample CPU time for your journey and not suffer cpu latency getting there.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.