Comments on: RFG clarifies its clarification http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/mainframe-blog/rfg-clarifies-its-clarification/ A SearchDataCenter.com blog Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:18:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Petexxxxx http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/mainframe-blog/rfg-clarifies-its-clarification/#comment-8 Petexxxxx Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:10:12 +0000 http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/mainframe-blog/rfg-clarifies-its-clarification/#comment-8 Thanks for this and November's posts covering the minor but revealing flap. In the November post Tuomoks and Jelo miss the most interesting aspect, the contemporary overlap shared between analysts in the business computing industry and analysts in today's investment banking world -- that overlap being a willingness and even primary mission to please the analyzed instead of the customers of the analysis. This never comes to any good for the customers and in fact ultimately harms customers greatly. In the case of business computing pleasing the analyzed has been the norm so long that no one smells a rat when large corporations continue to compute like it's 2001 or in many cases 1994 (and earlier). This is no wonder since those are the times when the vendors they still listen to and buy from last had (authentic) relevance. Today the z9 vs. Integrity stuff is mostly hype in a teapot because people who rely on such comparisons to make technology decisions are already likely on the wrong side of the debate and growing companies will move on. Even if the fridge-sized computers of today do share a lot in common with what the days of yore call mainframes, that's all the more reason to start calling them something else so new thinking can move forward. In any case we did have a a response to your posts, [A href="http://magnificenterprise.com/blog/2008/12/19/who-will-bail-out-the-irrelevant-consulting-groups/"]Who will bail out the irrelevant consulting groups?[/A]. Thanks again! Thanks for this and November’s posts covering the minor but revealing flap. In the November post Tuomoks and Jelo miss the most interesting aspect, the contemporary overlap shared between analysts in the business computing industry and analysts in today’s investment banking world — that overlap being a willingness and even primary mission to please the analyzed instead of the customers of the analysis. This never comes to any good for the customers and in fact ultimately harms customers greatly.

In the case of business computing pleasing the analyzed has been the norm so long that no one smells a rat when large corporations continue to compute like it’s 2001 or in many cases 1994 (and earlier). This is no wonder since those are the times when the vendors they still listen to and buy from last had (authentic) relevance.

Today the z9 vs. Integrity stuff is mostly hype in a teapot because people who rely on such comparisons to make technology decisions are already likely on the wrong side of the debate and growing companies will move on.

Even if the fridge-sized computers of today do share a lot in common with what the days of yore call mainframes, that’s all the more reason to start calling them something else so new thinking can move forward.

In any case we did have a a response to your posts, Who will bail out the irrelevant consulting groups?. Thanks again!

]]>