Re: Mainframe -> PC -> Mainframe

This interests me and there's something to this...

from: Daniel C. von Asmuth:
> In the old days, you had the mainframe computer, which was operated by a
> team of specialists, cost millions but served thousands of users.
...
> Most microcomputer software was freely shared, but then a young
> man named Bill Gates argued that you should sell your software. By 1981 IBM
> introduced a micro called the 'Personal Computer', creating what is
> sometimes called the PC revolution.

> The whole point of the PC is to give the users control over their machine
> so they wouldn't be bossed around system administrators.
...
> Twenty years later we find that end-users need professional help to use
> their PC', but supporting a large number of desktop PC's is more work
> than running a single mainframe, and the hard- and software of a hundred
> PC's, which have to be replaced every three years, is also more expensive.


Mainframe -> PC
   Years ago, mainframes were very expesnive (and thus rare) and storage space 
was a premium.  Users were generally limited in the program sizes they could 
have, when they could have time on the mainframe, etc.  There was often a 
large bottleneck there.  Furthermore, user programs that had not been 
accessed recently were often sent to long-term storage (tape) where it became 
troublesome to get them back for the user.
   Thus, it was _inevitable_ that due to those forces going on at the time, 
that we'd eventually end up going towards personal PC's.
   [Note: I'm not saying that the above happend _all the time_, just that from 
the stories I heard from engineers, the above seemed to be the case.]

PCs and users
   The real point of personal PCs (in my opinion) was mostly a matter of 
having a system in front of the user that didn't unexpectedly change, as well 
as giving the user the ability to have constant access to the user's work, 
something previously impossible for most people.  As computers got faster and 
easier to use, user expectations grew.  This ease of use came at a cost: 
users did not have to do any difficult setup or debugging of their machine, 
but were also typically _shielded_ from that information, making it more 
difficult for them to learn.  [The the typical "help" from some of the newer 
operating systems from "a popular software company" is a prime example.]  It 
also came with a benefit: fewer users had to know about any computer 
internals to use a computer.
   So: we catered to the common man, and lessened the available information 
accordingly so that the common man would not complain, at the cost of not 
educating the public.

PCs -> mainframe
   Now the network environment has changed once again due to Spam, 
viruses/worms, remote exploits, and slowly increasing network complexity.  
PC's have gotten to be extremely common machines on people's desks, but that 
makes them an excelent target for crackers to obscure their activities.  The 
knowledge necessary to deal with these problems is not mainstream, and 
crackers are able to take advantage of that at the expense of users.
   Also, most software is commercial, and there is a large movement to crack 
down on the public for illegal copying and copyright infringement.

   This is what is leading the change from desktop PCs back to mainframe or a 
move to thin clients at desks that run applications on a server, and forcing 
administrators to have further control over what programs and rights are 
available to users at their desks.
   This combined with higher user expectations built up before this point 
brings more users to seethe at administrators and increases tension.




   The conclusion that I've come to is that by one means or another, we were 
going to have to go through all of these steps in computer network and human 
evolution.  A combination of human desires, the technology available, and how 
abundant and accessible that technology is have all changed along the way to 
bring us here.

   We're now in the midst of yet another revolution...  At first the software 
was freely available on mainframes, then went over to commercial software on 
PCs.  Now we're slowly moving to free software on PCs again.  This is going 
to generate yet a new set of benefits and drawbacks.  In my mind this is 
again, totally inevitable.  It's just a matter of time due to forces in play, 
and the rate at which this is changing is increasing, as expected.

   The question in my mind is: are their drawbacks to having free software on 
PCs that will eventually drive that away yet again back to commercial 
software?  Is that cyclic?

   Something to think about.
	- Chris

-- 
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle-15hjz6xD4c1Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]