<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_10_200204</id>
	<title>Retired Mainframe Pros Lured Back Into Workforce</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247221320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.itworld.com/" rel="nofollow">itwbennett</a> writes <i>"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 <a href="http://www.itworld.com/\%5Bprimary-term\%5D/70886/retired-mainframe-pros-lured-back-workforce">struggling to find engineers</a>. 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.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 did n'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 .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656415</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247231340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you don't like working with COBOL. I haven't ever heard of a "small COBOL project".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do n't like working with COBOL .
I have n't ever heard of a " small COBOL project " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you don't like working with COBOL.
I haven't ever heard of a "small COBOL project".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656527</id>
	<title>If I had to pick...</title>
	<author>BSDetector</author>
	<datestamp>1247232600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had to pick hardware and software as if my life depended on it - it would be an IBM mainframe with the latest and greatest version of MVS (or whatever the current name of it is) on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had to pick hardware and software as if my life depended on it - it would be an IBM mainframe with the latest and greatest version of MVS ( or whatever the current name of it is ) on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had to pick hardware and software as if my life depended on it - it would be an IBM mainframe with the latest and greatest version of MVS (or whatever the current name of it is) on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28663695</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>some-old-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1247310540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So why has nobody bootstrapped themselves a bit by writing some libraries or extending/improving the language?</p></div><p>On IBM mainframes, there are the Language Environment (LE) callable services that provide a bit more functionality than native COBOL.  Otherwise, most corporations write their own.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or at least written a good editor.  It's been around for a long time.  Hasn't some bored guru written his own vi/emacs clone for it in the last 40 years?</p></div><p>There is an <a href="http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/SG247482.html?Open" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">Eclipse-based</a> [ibm.com] <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/rdz/" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">product</a> [ibm.com].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or improved the compiler to make the errors easier to understand?</p></div><p>IBM reportedly asserts that the error messages from their Enterprise COBOL product are all self-explanatory.  IBM's customers have varying opinions of that assertion.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or addressed any of the other complaints I've seen upthread?</p><p>Seriously... Is there something about cobol that makes that effectively impossible?</p></div><p>Like what?<br> <br>

<i>"no pointer/references"</i> - COBOL has had pointers since the 1985 standard.<br> <br>

<i>"low functionality"</i> - What does that mean, specifically?<br> <br>

<i>"[...] 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> - The first part is as true as your application design makes it (you can have more than one program in a source code member (read: file) and it's your choice whether or not the data in the enclosing program is visible to the nested program(s).  The second part is true in the same sense that all data in the database is global to an application.  Again, if you design something badly, don't blame your tools.<br> <br>

Really, COBOL has its faults, but these aren't them.<br> <br>

<i>"peculiar" "awful" "miserable" "weak" "arcane"</i> - these are just people exhibiting a personal preference.  No doubt there is (or was) a problem they needed to solve and COBOL was a bad fit.  Or maybe they're just parroting what some instructor or TA told them.<br> <br>

Over the last couple of decades I've been paid to write code in a baker's dozen programming languages on a half-dozen operating systems.  No matter which language I'm using, I always get to a point where I wish I could add in just a bit of another's features.  I find the most important thing to remember is that different languages have different problem spaces in which they're appropriate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why has nobody bootstrapped themselves a bit by writing some libraries or extending/improving the language ? On IBM mainframes , there are the Language Environment ( LE ) callable services that provide a bit more functionality than native COBOL .
Otherwise , most corporations write their own.Or at least written a good editor .
It 's been around for a long time .
Has n't some bored guru written his own vi/emacs clone for it in the last 40 years ? There is an Eclipse-based [ ibm.com ] product [ ibm.com ] .Or improved the compiler to make the errors easier to understand ? IBM reportedly asserts that the error messages from their Enterprise COBOL product are all self-explanatory .
IBM 's customers have varying opinions of that assertion.Or addressed any of the other complaints I 've seen upthread ? Seriously... Is there something about cobol that makes that effectively impossible ? Like what ?
" no pointer/references " - COBOL has had pointers since the 1985 standard .
" low functionality " - What does that mean , specifically ?
" [ ... ] 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 " - The first part is as true as your application design makes it ( you can have more than one program in a source code member ( read : file ) and it 's your choice whether or not the data in the enclosing program is visible to the nested program ( s ) .
The second part is true in the same sense that all data in the database is global to an application .
Again , if you design something badly , do n't blame your tools .
Really , COBOL has its faults , but these are n't them .
" peculiar " " awful " " miserable " " weak " " arcane " - these are just people exhibiting a personal preference .
No doubt there is ( or was ) a problem they needed to solve and COBOL was a bad fit .
Or maybe they 're just parroting what some instructor or TA told them .
Over the last couple of decades I 've been paid to write code in a baker 's dozen programming languages on a half-dozen operating systems .
No matter which language I 'm using , I always get to a point where I wish I could add in just a bit of another 's features .
I find the most important thing to remember is that different languages have different problem spaces in which they 're appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why has nobody bootstrapped themselves a bit by writing some libraries or extending/improving the language?On IBM mainframes, there are the Language Environment (LE) callable services that provide a bit more functionality than native COBOL.
Otherwise, most corporations write their own.Or at least written a good editor.
It's been around for a long time.
Hasn't some bored guru written his own vi/emacs clone for it in the last 40 years?There is an Eclipse-based [ibm.com] product [ibm.com].Or improved the compiler to make the errors easier to understand?IBM reportedly asserts that the error messages from their Enterprise COBOL product are all self-explanatory.
IBM's customers have varying opinions of that assertion.Or addressed any of the other complaints I've seen upthread?Seriously... Is there something about cobol that makes that effectively impossible?Like what?
"no pointer/references" - COBOL has had pointers since the 1985 standard.
"low functionality" - What does that mean, specifically?
"[...] 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" - The first part is as true as your application design makes it (you can have more than one program in a source code member (read: file) and it's your choice whether or not the data in the enclosing program is visible to the nested program(s).
The second part is true in the same sense that all data in the database is global to an application.
Again, if you design something badly, don't blame your tools.
Really, COBOL has its faults, but these aren't them.
"peculiar" "awful" "miserable" "weak" "arcane" - these are just people exhibiting a personal preference.
No doubt there is (or was) a problem they needed to solve and COBOL was a bad fit.
Or maybe they're just parroting what some instructor or TA told them.
Over the last couple of decades I've been paid to write code in a baker's dozen programming languages on a half-dozen operating systems.
No matter which language I'm using, I always get to a point where I wish I could add in just a bit of another's features.
I find the most important thing to remember is that different languages have different problem spaces in which they're appropriate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656249</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1247230080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet, for all the dissing you and other posters give COBOL - you can't ignore one salient fact:  It's powered some pretty high power systems for decades.  As the commercial says - "like a rock".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , for all the dissing you and other posters give COBOL - you ca n't ignore one salient fact : It 's powered some pretty high power systems for decades .
As the commercial says - " like a rock " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, for all the dissing you and other posters give COBOL - you can't ignore one salient fact:  It's powered some pretty high power systems for decades.
As the commercial says - "like a rock".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655703</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1247225820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps because COBOL isn't very similar to python, PHP or vbscript?</p><p>(I regularly use python, PHP and vbscript at work and I've messed around with COBOL at home on a few occasions and while the language is by no means hard to grasp it is a bit peculiar and I could never stand working on a large COBOL project.)</p><p>/Mikael</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps because COBOL is n't very similar to python , PHP or vbscript ?
( I regularly use python , PHP and vbscript at work and I 've messed around with COBOL at home on a few occasions and while the language is by no means hard to grasp it is a bit peculiar and I could never stand working on a large COBOL project .
) /Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps because COBOL isn't very similar to python, PHP or vbscript?
(I regularly use python, PHP and vbscript at work and I've messed around with COBOL at home on a few occasions and while the language is by no means hard to grasp it is a bit peculiar and I could never stand working on a large COBOL project.
)/Mikael</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28659883</id>
	<title>Agreed, &amp; PIC statements are example... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247326500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, 110\%... Back in 1985 &amp; later in 1991, I took COBOL, &amp; thought it was nasty, but, only because I had been exposed to BASIC in highschool &amp; the semester before it with both available for the midranges/mainframes (which is what I had to work on back then) in academia environs. Yes, there is a difference in the degree of difficulty &amp; tedium involved.</p><p>Per my subject-line, to perform output, doing PIC(X) stuff was a PAIN &amp; took time to get right positionally (yes, I took COBOL 74 std. first time (on a VAX 1180 system), &amp; later in 1991, I took the COBOL 85 std. (on an IBM AS/400), &amp; it was pretty much the same game - readable, yes, but long &amp; "drawn-out").</p><p>Sure, even in today's languages, sometimes, to format output correctly, you need "output masks" for things like strings &amp; such, but it's not nearly the manual hassle COBOL puts on the coder.</p><p>Coders today may bitch about "how bad a language is" &amp; all that, in today's HLL's... but, today's programming IDE's with code completion &amp; less work performing I/O (most times) + large amounts of documentation (plus, the internet too) is much less labor involved.</p><p>The only language, imo @ least, that is more work (in most ways) is Assembly (which even in MASM, a more 'automated model' of that language imo) because it's probably the MOST "manual" language tool of all but even IT doesn't demand those damned PIC statements.</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Disclaimer: I haven't had to use COBOL for 17++ yrs., so, my memory of it may be a bit "dim", but that was my impression of it I was left with, especially by way of comparison to today's programmatic IDE tools, which ARE, far better/superior... apk</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , 110 \ % ... Back in 1985 &amp; later in 1991 , I took COBOL , &amp; thought it was nasty , but , only because I had been exposed to BASIC in highschool &amp; the semester before it with both available for the midranges/mainframes ( which is what I had to work on back then ) in academia environs .
Yes , there is a difference in the degree of difficulty &amp; tedium involved.Per my subject-line , to perform output , doing PIC ( X ) stuff was a PAIN &amp; took time to get right positionally ( yes , I took COBOL 74 std .
first time ( on a VAX 1180 system ) , &amp; later in 1991 , I took the COBOL 85 std .
( on an IBM AS/400 ) , &amp; it was pretty much the same game - readable , yes , but long &amp; " drawn-out " ) .Sure , even in today 's languages , sometimes , to format output correctly , you need " output masks " for things like strings &amp; such , but it 's not nearly the manual hassle COBOL puts on the coder.Coders today may bitch about " how bad a language is " &amp; all that , in today 's HLL 's... but , today 's programming IDE 's with code completion &amp; less work performing I/O ( most times ) + large amounts of documentation ( plus , the internet too ) is much less labor involved.The only language , imo @ least , that is more work ( in most ways ) is Assembly ( which even in MASM , a more 'automated model ' of that language imo ) because it 's probably the MOST " manual " language tool of all but even IT does n't demand those damned PIC statements.APKP.S. = &gt; Disclaimer : I have n't had to use COBOL for 17 + + yrs. , so , my memory of it may be a bit " dim " , but that was my impression of it I was left with , especially by way of comparison to today 's programmatic IDE tools , which ARE , far better/superior... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, 110\%... Back in 1985 &amp; later in 1991, I took COBOL, &amp; thought it was nasty, but, only because I had been exposed to BASIC in highschool &amp; the semester before it with both available for the midranges/mainframes (which is what I had to work on back then) in academia environs.
Yes, there is a difference in the degree of difficulty &amp; tedium involved.Per my subject-line, to perform output, doing PIC(X) stuff was a PAIN &amp; took time to get right positionally (yes, I took COBOL 74 std.
first time (on a VAX 1180 system), &amp; later in 1991, I took the COBOL 85 std.
(on an IBM AS/400), &amp; it was pretty much the same game - readable, yes, but long &amp; "drawn-out").Sure, even in today's languages, sometimes, to format output correctly, you need "output masks" for things like strings &amp; such, but it's not nearly the manual hassle COBOL puts on the coder.Coders today may bitch about "how bad a language is" &amp; all that, in today's HLL's... but, today's programming IDE's with code completion &amp; less work performing I/O (most times) + large amounts of documentation (plus, the internet too) is much less labor involved.The only language, imo @ least, that is more work (in most ways) is Assembly (which even in MASM, a more 'automated model' of that language imo) because it's probably the MOST "manual" language tool of all but even IT doesn't demand those damned PIC statements.APKP.S.=&gt; Disclaimer: I haven't had to use COBOL for 17++ yrs., so, my memory of it may be a bit "dim", but that was my impression of it I was left with, especially by way of comparison to today's programmatic IDE tools, which ARE, far better/superior... apk</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657969</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>CPNABEND</author>
	<datestamp>1247252280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BTW - It is COBOL - COmmon Business Oriented Language

And BTW, does anyone have stats on how many million lines of COBOL code are running businesses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW - It is COBOL - COmmon Business Oriented Language And BTW , does anyone have stats on how many million lines of COBOL code are running businesses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW - It is COBOL - COmmon Business Oriented Language

And BTW, does anyone have stats on how many million lines of COBOL code are running businesses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657637</id>
	<title>Adding more paste to the patch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247245680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually patch and paste will get you only so far. I dont have an issue with mainframes. I do have an issue with the fact that a lot of modern software, tools apps wont run on a lot of these older systems. They havent kept up so its like you have an old die hard piece of hardware that limits you because the software hasnt kept up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually patch and paste will get you only so far .
I dont have an issue with mainframes .
I do have an issue with the fact that a lot of modern software , tools apps wont run on a lot of these older systems .
They havent kept up so its like you have an old die hard piece of hardware that limits you because the software hasnt kept up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually patch and paste will get you only so far.
I dont have an issue with mainframes.
I do have an issue with the fact that a lot of modern software, tools apps wont run on a lot of these older systems.
They havent kept up so its like you have an old die hard piece of hardware that limits you because the software hasnt kept up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657253</id>
	<title>Re:The modern mainframe - Who cares about COBOL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247240460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have an entire product running on many mainframes without a line of COBOL in it. C/C++ and Java run reasonably well there and you can drop down to assembler when you really need to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have an entire product running on many mainframes without a line of COBOL in it .
C/C + + and Java run reasonably well there and you can drop down to assembler when you really need to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have an entire product running on many mainframes without a line of COBOL in it.
C/C++ and Java run reasonably well there and you can drop down to assembler when you really need to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28665237</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>COBOL is an odd beast, with no pointer/references..</p></div><p>Haven't actually seen COBOL on a mainframe for quite a few years, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>COBOL is an odd beast , with no pointer/references..Have n't actually seen COBOL on a mainframe for quite a few years , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COBOL is an odd beast, with no pointer/references..Haven't actually seen COBOL on a mainframe for quite a few years, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28662537</id>
	<title>Re:The modern mainframe - Who cares about COBOL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah-but can your mainframes run Photoshop while at the same time letting me surf the web for porno flicks to watch while waiting for Photoshop to get "done?"</p><p>FWIW-the Captcha word for this is post is "disgusts"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah-but can your mainframes run Photoshop while at the same time letting me surf the web for porno flicks to watch while waiting for Photoshop to get " done ?
" FWIW-the Captcha word for this is post is " disgusts "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah-but can your mainframes run Photoshop while at the same time letting me surf the web for porno flicks to watch while waiting for Photoshop to get "done?
"FWIW-the Captcha word for this is post is "disgusts"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655935</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1247227320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is a very miserable language to write in, and I wouldn't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour, just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.</p></div><p>Couldn't you write in a more concise language, and have a simple compiler generate the equivalent COBOL code?</p><p>Even if it couldn't reverse-translate existing COBOL code, it could make your life a lot easier for newly written code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a very miserable language to write in , and I would n't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour , just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.Could n't you write in a more concise language , and have a simple compiler generate the equivalent COBOL code ? Even if it could n't reverse-translate existing COBOL code , it could make your life a lot easier for newly written code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a very miserable language to write in, and I wouldn't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour, just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.Couldn't you write in a more concise language, and have a simple compiler generate the equivalent COBOL code?Even if it couldn't reverse-translate existing COBOL code, it could make your life a lot easier for newly written code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28665151</id>
	<title>Code Generators?  Bueller?  Anyone?</title>
	<author>gravyface</author>
	<datestamp>1247329860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm too lazy to Google it, but if the language is so arcane and simplistic, wouldn't it be worthwhile to write a COBOL code generator so you can write code in something that doesn't suck?  I realize that code generators are not always as expressive and/or sometimes don't follow conventions of said generated language, but getting 90\% of the job done has to be better than trying to lure some old codgers out of their kid's basement right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm too lazy to Google it , but if the language is so arcane and simplistic , would n't it be worthwhile to write a COBOL code generator so you can write code in something that does n't suck ?
I realize that code generators are not always as expressive and/or sometimes do n't follow conventions of said generated language , but getting 90 \ % of the job done has to be better than trying to lure some old codgers out of their kid 's basement right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm too lazy to Google it, but if the language is so arcane and simplistic, wouldn't it be worthwhile to write a COBOL code generator so you can write code in something that doesn't suck?
I realize that code generators are not always as expressive and/or sometimes don't follow conventions of said generated language, but getting 90\% of the job done has to be better than trying to lure some old codgers out of their kid's basement right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658853</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>thebjorn</author>
	<datestamp>1247312280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I took a cobol course my first year at University and I ended up walking out of the class during the third lecture.  It just wasn't for me.<br> <br>

Now I'm making six-figures as a web-monkey doing all kinds of exciting projects. My day-to-day tools include html, css, javascript, python, bash, and sql (tsql and whatever the MySql variant is called).  Less frequently used tools include c++, c#, vb.net, emacs lisp, and java.  That's ~10 languages (depending on your definition of language).<br> <br>

In my previous life I was a back-end c++/database software architect, but that wasn't nearly as much fun<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I took a cobol course my first year at University and I ended up walking out of the class during the third lecture .
It just was n't for me .
Now I 'm making six-figures as a web-monkey doing all kinds of exciting projects .
My day-to-day tools include html , css , javascript , python , bash , and sql ( tsql and whatever the MySql variant is called ) .
Less frequently used tools include c + + , c # , vb.net , emacs lisp , and java .
That 's ~ 10 languages ( depending on your definition of language ) .
In my previous life I was a back-end c + + /database software architect , but that was n't nearly as much fun : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took a cobol course my first year at University and I ended up walking out of the class during the third lecture.
It just wasn't for me.
Now I'm making six-figures as a web-monkey doing all kinds of exciting projects.
My day-to-day tools include html, css, javascript, python, bash, and sql (tsql and whatever the MySql variant is called).
Less frequently used tools include c++, c#, vb.net, emacs lisp, and java.
That's ~10 languages (depending on your definition of language).
In my previous life I was a back-end c++/database software architect, but that wasn't nearly as much fun :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655701</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247225820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java , Cobol same thing.<br>OOP != Procedural<br>A slightly different mind set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java , Cobol same thing.OOP ! = ProceduralA slightly different mind set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java , Cobol same thing.OOP != ProceduralA slightly different mind set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656049</id>
	<title>Obligatory Followup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247228400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a programmer back in the 1990's that didn't want to mess with the whole Y2K issue.  So he cryogenically had himself frozen, hoping that some day (after Y2K) he would be revived and live out his days peacefully.
<br> <br>
Some years later, sure enough he wakes up.   Asking the nearest person what year it is, they reply, "It's the year 9999 and we need a COBOL programmer to help with this Y10K problem!"
<br> <br>
Yeah, it's an old joke.  Now GOML!</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a programmer back in the 1990 's that did n't want to mess with the whole Y2K issue .
So he cryogenically had himself frozen , hoping that some day ( after Y2K ) he would be revived and live out his days peacefully .
Some years later , sure enough he wakes up .
Asking the nearest person what year it is , they reply , " It 's the year 9999 and we need a COBOL programmer to help with this Y10K problem !
" Yeah , it 's an old joke .
Now GOML !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a programmer back in the 1990's that didn't want to mess with the whole Y2K issue.
So he cryogenically had himself frozen, hoping that some day (after Y2K) he would be revived and live out his days peacefully.
Some years later, sure enough he wakes up.
Asking the nearest person what year it is, they reply, "It's the year 9999 and we need a COBOL programmer to help with this Y10K problem!
"
 
Yeah, it's an old joke.
Now GOML!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455</id>
	<title>The modern mainframe - Who cares about COBOL?</title>
	<author>Ken Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1247231700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 are n'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 has n'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.Do n'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 do n't understand what they are now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657635</id>
	<title>A pirates life for me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247245680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Memories, a sickening skid ending in a nasty thud.
Time, and pain, everywhere, and then bright lights.<p>
Some voices, "what the hell are you doing to that frozen meat popsicle"
</p><p>"Shutup!, it knows COBOL !"
"It's a long dead duck, we dumped it years ago.  Put him back in the icebox!"
</p><p>
"You idiot! It knows JCL and Procs and TSO and REXX, even ISPF and OS-390 and VSAM-KSDS..."
"What? the old legendary languages?  really!"
</p><p>"What does it do! flap it's fingers on a set of metal keys! put it back! "
It's starting to smell... again!...
</p><p>
"No.  Wake it up, offer it money, lots of money... they used to like that..."
</p><p>
I can move my lips, croaking  "Yeah money... lots of cool green money..."
A Jolt, of liquid, my vision clears revealing a shiny new account statement.... full of big big numbers...
</p><p>
"Can you sit up...  and while your recovering... read this sysdump for us...
Oh and we need this job to finish in 30 minutes, or less. each night..."
</p><p>
"What's a Job listing? why does the paper have green bars?  what are all these dead trees in here for? </p><p> what are you doing to do with that gun!"
Shots and screams.... gurgling to silence.
</p><p>
What a tragic waste, of an accounts payable clerk....
</p><p>
Bring More money...   Aaahhhhhh  that's better...
</p><p>
Hungry...  "Bring me something cold...  a dish of revenge, fresh chilled bean counters,
iced CFO for dessert, frozen outsauce on the side..."
</p><p>
Pass me that JCL abend listing? and keep the cold stuffed cost cutters coming...
</p><p>
Make em squeal.  Client Pays!  </p><p>
No mercy billing, that's our policy mateys! </p><p>
Take what you can, give nothing back! </p><p>
Yo Ho Me Hearties!
</p><p>
Submit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Memories , a sickening skid ending in a nasty thud .
Time , and pain , everywhere , and then bright lights .
Some voices , " what the hell are you doing to that frozen meat popsicle " " Shutup ! , it knows COBOL !
" " It 's a long dead duck , we dumped it years ago .
Put him back in the icebox !
" " You idiot !
It knows JCL and Procs and TSO and REXX , even ISPF and OS-390 and VSAM-KSDS... " " What ?
the old legendary languages ?
really ! " " What does it do !
flap it 's fingers on a set of metal keys !
put it back !
" It 's starting to smell.. .
again ! .. . " No .
Wake it up , offer it money , lots of money... they used to like that... " I can move my lips , croaking " Yeah money... lots of cool green money... " A Jolt , of liquid , my vision clears revealing a shiny new account statement.... full of big big numbers.. . " Can you sit up... and while your recovering... read this sysdump for us.. . Oh and we need this job to finish in 30 minutes , or less .
each night... " " What 's a Job listing ?
why does the paper have green bars ?
what are all these dead trees in here for ?
what are you doing to do with that gun !
" Shots and screams.... gurgling to silence .
What a tragic waste , of an accounts payable clerk... . Bring More money... Aaahhhhhh that 's better.. . Hungry... " Bring me something cold... a dish of revenge , fresh chilled bean counters , iced CFO for dessert , frozen outsauce on the side... " Pass me that JCL abend listing ?
and keep the cold stuffed cost cutters coming.. . Make em squeal .
Client Pays !
No mercy billing , that 's our policy mateys !
Take what you can , give nothing back !
Yo Ho Me Hearties !
Submit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Memories, a sickening skid ending in a nasty thud.
Time, and pain, everywhere, and then bright lights.
Some voices, "what the hell are you doing to that frozen meat popsicle"
"Shutup!, it knows COBOL !
"
"It's a long dead duck, we dumped it years ago.
Put him back in the icebox!
"

"You idiot!
It knows JCL and Procs and TSO and REXX, even ISPF and OS-390 and VSAM-KSDS..."
"What?
the old legendary languages?
really!"
"What does it do!
flap it's fingers on a set of metal keys!
put it back!
"
It's starting to smell...
again!...

"No.
Wake it up, offer it money, lots of money... they used to like that..."

I can move my lips, croaking  "Yeah money... lots of cool green money..."
A Jolt, of liquid, my vision clears revealing a shiny new account statement.... full of big big numbers...

"Can you sit up...  and while your recovering... read this sysdump for us...
Oh and we need this job to finish in 30 minutes, or less.
each night..."

"What's a Job listing?
why does the paper have green bars?
what are all these dead trees in here for?
what are you doing to do with that gun!
"
Shots and screams.... gurgling to silence.
What a tragic waste, of an accounts payable clerk....

Bring More money...   Aaahhhhhh  that's better...

Hungry...  "Bring me something cold...  a dish of revenge, fresh chilled bean counters,
iced CFO for dessert, frozen outsauce on the side..."

Pass me that JCL abend listing?
and keep the cold stuffed cost cutters coming...

Make em squeal.
Client Pays!
No mercy billing, that's our policy mateys!
Take what you can, give nothing back!
Yo Ho Me Hearties!
Submit...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28696651</id>
	<title>"inadvertant" mistake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247567400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>not to rant, but I don't see anything "inadvertant" about the shortfall created by specifically firing the most experienced and knowledgable employees of a company/department.

Bean-counter-led business models are almost reliably bad business models.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant</htmltext>
<tokenext>not to rant , but I do n't see anything " inadvertant " about the shortfall created by specifically firing the most experienced and knowledgable employees of a company/department .
Bean-counter-led business models are almost reliably bad business models .
/rant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to rant, but I don't see anything "inadvertant" about the shortfall created by specifically firing the most experienced and knowledgable employees of a company/department.
Bean-counter-led business models are almost reliably bad business models.
/rant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656371</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1247231040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was subjected to 3 semesters of that crap in college, which caused me to set my price for doing COBOL programming to $300/Hour (USD). It's an awful language which you write using awful tools in an awful operating system.
<p>
I rather like mainframes in general though. Hell I can at least tolerate Fortran if it comes down to it. COBOL... not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was subjected to 3 semesters of that crap in college , which caused me to set my price for doing COBOL programming to $ 300/Hour ( USD ) .
It 's an awful language which you write using awful tools in an awful operating system .
I rather like mainframes in general though .
Hell I can at least tolerate Fortran if it comes down to it .
COBOL... not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was subjected to 3 semesters of that crap in college, which caused me to set my price for doing COBOL programming to $300/Hour (USD).
It's an awful language which you write using awful tools in an awful operating system.
I rather like mainframes in general though.
Hell I can at least tolerate Fortran if it comes down to it.
COBOL... not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656601</id>
	<title>be prepared</title>
	<author>reiisi</author>
	<datestamp>1247233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You not only have to know the application field pretty well (or have the bent to intuit it), but you will have to get used to living without local variables and to a one-call-deep call stack.</p><p>Don't ignore the naming conventions. It's what they do to work around the lack of re-entrance.</p><p>And never, never, never try anything fancy. If you can't keep the state machine in your head, trying to debug it interactively will eat your lunch and your breakfast, dinner, and midnight snacks, as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You not only have to know the application field pretty well ( or have the bent to intuit it ) , but you will have to get used to living without local variables and to a one-call-deep call stack.Do n't ignore the naming conventions .
It 's what they do to work around the lack of re-entrance.And never , never , never try anything fancy .
If you ca n't keep the state machine in your head , trying to debug it interactively will eat your lunch and your breakfast , dinner , and midnight snacks , as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You not only have to know the application field pretty well (or have the bent to intuit it), but you will have to get used to living without local variables and to a one-call-deep call stack.Don't ignore the naming conventions.
It's what they do to work around the lack of re-entrance.And never, never, never try anything fancy.
If you can't keep the state machine in your head, trying to debug it interactively will eat your lunch and your breakfast, dinner, and midnight snacks, as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</id>
	<title>Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>c0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1247226420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I learned and taught cobol for awhile, and i can say that cobol is not too far from data entry.  It is way too much work to do simple things, and it is way too weak of a language for most things.  Its functionality is low that it takes a lot of code to implement simple things.  The compiler gives you weird error messages.  The language is archane.  It is a very miserable language to write in, and I wouldn't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour, just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I learned and taught cobol for awhile , and i can say that cobol is not too far from data entry .
It is way too much work to do simple things , and it is way too weak of a language for most things .
Its functionality is low that it takes a lot of code to implement simple things .
The compiler gives you weird error messages .
The language is archane .
It is a very miserable language to write in , and I would n't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour , just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I learned and taught cobol for awhile, and i can say that cobol is not too far from data entry.
It is way too much work to do simple things, and it is way too weak of a language for most things.
Its functionality is low that it takes a lot of code to implement simple things.
The compiler gives you weird error messages.
The language is archane.
It is a very miserable language to write in, and I wouldn't code in it for less than several hundreds of dollars per hour, just because its so boring and takes way too much typing to do simple things that would be a snap in other languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657089</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247238540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just posturing by CA.</p><p>I work for a company with a very large mainframe implementation. It's true that the mainframe is not going away - ever. But, the workforce is. I'm 25 years old and support mainframe infrastructure components of online transaction processing (guess which<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) ). We have a documentation initiative that aims to be detailed enough that someone who doesn't know what they are doing can read the document and be effective. Whether or not this is possible remains to be seen (the older employees have intentionally sabotaged or otherwise made incomplete their documents). Management has explained to me that they intend to offshore most of the mainframe jobs (India). They have been very open about it... with the few young people who work here. They are tacitly telling us that this is not a career</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just posturing by CA.I work for a company with a very large mainframe implementation .
It 's true that the mainframe is not going away - ever .
But , the workforce is .
I 'm 25 years old and support mainframe infrastructure components of online transaction processing ( guess which ; ) ) .
We have a documentation initiative that aims to be detailed enough that someone who does n't know what they are doing can read the document and be effective .
Whether or not this is possible remains to be seen ( the older employees have intentionally sabotaged or otherwise made incomplete their documents ) .
Management has explained to me that they intend to offshore most of the mainframe jobs ( India ) .
They have been very open about it... with the few young people who work here .
They are tacitly telling us that this is not a career</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just posturing by CA.I work for a company with a very large mainframe implementation.
It's true that the mainframe is not going away - ever.
But, the workforce is.
I'm 25 years old and support mainframe infrastructure components of online transaction processing (guess which ;) ).
We have a documentation initiative that aims to be detailed enough that someone who doesn't know what they are doing can read the document and be effective.
Whether or not this is possible remains to be seen (the older employees have intentionally sabotaged or otherwise made incomplete their documents).
Management has explained to me that they intend to offshore most of the mainframe jobs (India).
They have been very open about it... with the few young people who work here.
They are tacitly telling us that this is not a career</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656543</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1247232720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you mean?  COBOL is such an easy language, it uses natural sentence construction.  Why do you need specialized programmers, anyway?  It can be easily used by managers to generate reports and suchlike.  <p>There's this new language on the horizon, though - it "basically" makes programming a snap for non-programmers, and is likely to eliminate the job of programmers entirely except for a few high-level system engineering projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
COBOL is such an easy language , it uses natural sentence construction .
Why do you need specialized programmers , anyway ?
It can be easily used by managers to generate reports and suchlike .
There 's this new language on the horizon , though - it " basically " makes programming a snap for non-programmers , and is likely to eliminate the job of programmers entirely except for a few high-level system engineering projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean?
COBOL is such an easy language, it uses natural sentence construction.
Why do you need specialized programmers, anyway?
It can be easily used by managers to generate reports and suchlike.
There's this new language on the horizon, though - it "basically" makes programming a snap for non-programmers, and is likely to eliminate the job of programmers entirely except for a few high-level system engineering projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655957</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1247227500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would the advantage be in highering a coder?  It would be more difficult to reach the keyboard for a start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would the advantage be in highering a coder ?
It would be more difficult to reach the keyboard for a start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would the advantage be in highering a coder?
It would be more difficult to reach the keyboard for a start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658857</id>
	<title>where are you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247312280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that a six figure salary for a programming job is impressive?   here on the west coast, humble SysAdmins command that much after a few years;   http://hrsalarycenter.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl\_salaryresults.asp?hdSearchByOption=0&amp;hdSearchByOption=0&amp;hdKeyword=Systems\%20Administrator,\%20Sr.&amp;hdJobCategory=IT03&amp;hdZipCode=94086&amp;hdStateMetro=&amp;hdGeoLocation=Sunnyvale,\%20CA\%2094086&amp;hdJobCode=IT10000136&amp;hdJobTitle=Systems\%20Administrator,\%20Sr.&amp;hdfte=&amp;hdCurrentTab=&amp;hdNarrowDesc=IT\%20--\%20All</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that a six figure salary for a programming job is impressive ?
here on the west coast , humble SysAdmins command that much after a few years ; http : //hrsalarycenter.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl \ _salaryresults.asp ? hdSearchByOption = 0&amp;hdSearchByOption = 0&amp;hdKeyword = Systems \ % 20Administrator , \ % 20Sr.&amp;hdJobCategory = IT03&amp;hdZipCode = 94086&amp;hdStateMetro = &amp;hdGeoLocation = Sunnyvale , \ % 20CA \ % 2094086&amp;hdJobCode = IT10000136&amp;hdJobTitle = Systems \ % 20Administrator , \ % 20Sr.&amp;hdfte = &amp;hdCurrentTab = &amp;hdNarrowDesc = IT \ % 20-- \ % 20All</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that a six figure salary for a programming job is impressive?
here on the west coast, humble SysAdmins command that much after a few years;   http://hrsalarycenter.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl\_salaryresults.asp?hdSearchByOption=0&amp;hdSearchByOption=0&amp;hdKeyword=Systems\%20Administrator,\%20Sr.&amp;hdJobCategory=IT03&amp;hdZipCode=94086&amp;hdStateMetro=&amp;hdGeoLocation=Sunnyvale,\%20CA\%2094086&amp;hdJobCode=IT10000136&amp;hdJobTitle=Systems\%20Administrator,\%20Sr.&amp;hdfte=&amp;hdCurrentTab=&amp;hdNarrowDesc=IT\%20--\%20All</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655907</id>
	<title>Oblig. Ref.</title>
	<author>dugrrr</author>
	<datestamp>1247227080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>from BSG:

"Any return to COBOL will exact a price paid in blood."</htmltext>
<tokenext>from BSG : " Any return to COBOL will exact a price paid in blood .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from BSG:

"Any return to COBOL will exact a price paid in blood.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656333</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247230740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1915205/Automated-Migration-From-Cobol-To-Java-On-Linux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //developers.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1915205/Automated-Migration-From-Cobol-To-Java-On-Linux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/06/24/1915205/Automated-Migration-From-Cobol-To-Java-On-Linux</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656023</id>
	<title>Re:Mainframe or Cloud computing or VM's?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247228220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think the problem is coding, no it's the issue of a totally new harware and software costs. The mainframes may be relatively easy to convert... if only they knew what they did.</p><p>Re-engineering any complex system takes investment over a long period of time (documenting all processes and how it is achieved). Then any system can be copied  using a experienced software engineer and possibly team of developers / testers.</p><p>But as building software seems less reliable than building anything else in the physical world (\% of projects that fail), management may still be reluctant to "re-invent the wheel". Even if you say it's quicker and cheaper to redo, there has to be a business case put to the people that make the decisions. All too often workers dont do this and spent all their time working, not putting forward the need for further development.</p><p>I would have thought it's human nature to see IT staff and skills as a cost saving (when things were working fine). Then you are always going to get this situation where old IT skills are necessary?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think the problem is coding , no it 's the issue of a totally new harware and software costs .
The mainframes may be relatively easy to convert... if only they knew what they did.Re-engineering any complex system takes investment over a long period of time ( documenting all processes and how it is achieved ) .
Then any system can be copied using a experienced software engineer and possibly team of developers / testers.But as building software seems less reliable than building anything else in the physical world ( \ % of projects that fail ) , management may still be reluctant to " re-invent the wheel " .
Even if you say it 's quicker and cheaper to redo , there has to be a business case put to the people that make the decisions .
All too often workers dont do this and spent all their time working , not putting forward the need for further development.I would have thought it 's human nature to see IT staff and skills as a cost saving ( when things were working fine ) .
Then you are always going to get this situation where old IT skills are necessary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think the problem is coding, no it's the issue of a totally new harware and software costs.
The mainframes may be relatively easy to convert... if only they knew what they did.Re-engineering any complex system takes investment over a long period of time (documenting all processes and how it is achieved).
Then any system can be copied  using a experienced software engineer and possibly team of developers / testers.But as building software seems less reliable than building anything else in the physical world (\% of projects that fail), management may still be reluctant to "re-invent the wheel".
Even if you say it's quicker and cheaper to redo, there has to be a business case put to the people that make the decisions.
All too often workers dont do this and spent all their time working, not putting forward the need for further development.I would have thought it's human nature to see IT staff and skills as a cost saving (when things were working fine).
Then you are always going to get this situation where old IT skills are necessary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</id>
	<title>Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1247224920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) Back then, most schools were removing or had removed COBOL programming from their course list.</p><p>I was half-jokingly telling them that by 2015 they should be earning 150-200K a year as a simple COBOL developer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)))</p><p>See this article from last year saying basically the same thing :</p><p><a href="http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/08/07/231774/cobol-programmer-shortage-starts-to-bite.htm" title="computerweekly.com">http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2008/08/07/231774/cobol-programmer-shortage-starts-to-bite.htm</a> [computerweekly.com]</p><p>Note: I am to old to start to learn COBOL, this is stuff for young people...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 [ computerweekly.com ] Note : I am to old to start to learn COBOL , this is stuff for young people... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 [computerweekly.com]Note: I am to old to start to learn COBOL, this is stuff for young people... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247225520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you higher a "Cobol" coder to program Cobol. A lot of web programmers work with 10+ languages, what's one more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you higher a " Cobol " coder to program Cobol .
A lot of web programmers work with 10 + languages , what 's one more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you higher a "Cobol" coder to program Cobol.
A lot of web programmers work with 10+ languages, what's one more?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28661727</id>
	<title>Re:VAX</title>
	<author>Guido von Guido</author>
	<datestamp>1247339160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A Vax is a minicomputer.  The minicomputers really are dying.  None of them are being made now, unless you count IBMs successor to the AS/400 (the iSeries?).</p></div><p>Well, "iSeries" was a couple of names ago. After iSeries, they called it System i, and now Power Systems. They're merging the hardware with the RS/6000/pSeries/System p line. Depending on the degree to which "minicomputer" is equivalent to "mid-range computer," they're still alive and kicking, albeit with arthritis and bad knees.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Vax is a minicomputer .
The minicomputers really are dying .
None of them are being made now , unless you count IBMs successor to the AS/400 ( the iSeries ?
) .Well , " iSeries " was a couple of names ago .
After iSeries , they called it System i , and now Power Systems .
They 're merging the hardware with the RS/6000/pSeries/System p line .
Depending on the degree to which " minicomputer " is equivalent to " mid-range computer , " they 're still alive and kicking , albeit with arthritis and bad knees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Vax is a minicomputer.
The minicomputers really are dying.
None of them are being made now, unless you count IBMs successor to the AS/400 (the iSeries?
).Well, "iSeries" was a couple of names ago.
After iSeries, they called it System i, and now Power Systems.
They're merging the hardware with the RS/6000/pSeries/System p line.
Depending on the degree to which "minicomputer" is equivalent to "mid-range computer," they're still alive and kicking, albeit with arthritis and bad knees.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655891</id>
	<title>Re:Here is to....</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1247226960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easier said than done, matey.  Some of these systems are running engines that cause me to cower.  I have had issues with SQL/Oracle databases and the financial apps of companies that can afford a few hours, or even days downtime.  Systems where it was feasible to run two separate versions at once with duplicate data entry.<br><br>I've only run theoretical experiments with some of the systems in other companies I've worked at that COULDN'T go down, except for very special periods of time (easter and christmas and new years), oddly enough, enough of the world isn't working those weekends that you can shut down.<br><br>I can't imagine taking down the backends of the likes of Bank of America or Citibank.  I lived through the quagmire that was the BankBoston/Fleet merger, and they fucked that up royally.  And that's just merging systems, not wholesale replacement.<br><br>Good F*ing Luck to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easier said than done , matey .
Some of these systems are running engines that cause me to cower .
I have had issues with SQL/Oracle databases and the financial apps of companies that can afford a few hours , or even days downtime .
Systems where it was feasible to run two separate versions at once with duplicate data entry.I 've only run theoretical experiments with some of the systems in other companies I 've worked at that COULD N'T go down , except for very special periods of time ( easter and christmas and new years ) , oddly enough , enough of the world is n't working those weekends that you can shut down.I ca n't imagine taking down the backends of the likes of Bank of America or Citibank .
I lived through the quagmire that was the BankBoston/Fleet merger , and they fucked that up royally .
And that 's just merging systems , not wholesale replacement.Good F * ing Luck to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easier said than done, matey.
Some of these systems are running engines that cause me to cower.
I have had issues with SQL/Oracle databases and the financial apps of companies that can afford a few hours, or even days downtime.
Systems where it was feasible to run two separate versions at once with duplicate data entry.I've only run theoretical experiments with some of the systems in other companies I've worked at that COULDN'T go down, except for very special periods of time (easter and christmas and new years), oddly enough, enough of the world isn't working those weekends that you can shut down.I can't imagine taking down the backends of the likes of Bank of America or Citibank.
I lived through the quagmire that was the BankBoston/Fleet merger, and they fucked that up royally.
And that's just merging systems, not wholesale replacement.Good F*ing Luck to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658393</id>
	<title>as/400 programmers brought in as Dir. of IT</title>
	<author>awpoopy</author>
	<datestamp>1247303220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know two of them.<br>
Nice enough persons, however just because they can write RPG and queries on a green screen somehow got translated to the title of Director of IT.<br>
Really though, their heads are up their ass when it comes to anything IT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know two of them .
Nice enough persons , however just because they can write RPG and queries on a green screen somehow got translated to the title of Director of IT .
Really though , their heads are up their ass when it comes to anything IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know two of them.
Nice enough persons, however just because they can write RPG and queries on a green screen somehow got translated to the title of Director of IT.
Really though, their heads are up their ass when it comes to anything IT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656635</id>
	<title>VMS lives on!</title>
	<author>\_merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1247233500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VAX may be dead, but VMS is still very much alive.  The popular OMX trading system runs on VMS/Itanium.  It's the backend of many stock exchanges, including NASDAQ, ASX and HKEx derivatives.  The systems seem very reliable with decent performance.  (Definitely better than that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET-based TradElect crap the LSE is now trying to drop like a hot potato.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VAX may be dead , but VMS is still very much alive .
The popular OMX trading system runs on VMS/Itanium .
It 's the backend of many stock exchanges , including NASDAQ , ASX and HKEx derivatives .
The systems seem very reliable with decent performance .
( Definitely better than that .NET-based TradElect crap the LSE is now trying to drop like a hot potato .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VAX may be dead, but VMS is still very much alive.
The popular OMX trading system runs on VMS/Itanium.
It's the backend of many stock exchanges, including NASDAQ, ASX and HKEx derivatives.
The systems seem very reliable with decent performance.
(Definitely better than that .NET-based TradElect crap the LSE is now trying to drop like a hot potato.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656545</id>
	<title>10+ languages?</title>
	<author>reiisi</author>
	<datestamp>1247232780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody really knows 10+ languages. Some people have a good ability to guess which library functions to call in a certain specific context.</p><p>It's kind of like being able to "Hello, where's the facilities?" and read carburetor manuals in ten different languages. You know the field, and you learn enough to do a little handshake conversation with the people.</p><p>And, in this case, it's like knowing how to get around in your niche in ten Latin family languages and talking about learning enough, say, Japanese, to go there and try to work as an engineering manager on products for the Japanese market.</p><p>Although that example might not hit home if you're the kind of guy who thinks knowing the word "kiai" makes you both a jiujutsu master and a Japanese master.</p><p>I have seen C written like good CoBOL. You will not see CoBOL written like good C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody really knows 10 + languages .
Some people have a good ability to guess which library functions to call in a certain specific context.It 's kind of like being able to " Hello , where 's the facilities ?
" and read carburetor manuals in ten different languages .
You know the field , and you learn enough to do a little handshake conversation with the people.And , in this case , it 's like knowing how to get around in your niche in ten Latin family languages and talking about learning enough , say , Japanese , to go there and try to work as an engineering manager on products for the Japanese market.Although that example might not hit home if you 're the kind of guy who thinks knowing the word " kiai " makes you both a jiujutsu master and a Japanese master.I have seen C written like good CoBOL .
You will not see CoBOL written like good C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody really knows 10+ languages.
Some people have a good ability to guess which library functions to call in a certain specific context.It's kind of like being able to "Hello, where's the facilities?
" and read carburetor manuals in ten different languages.
You know the field, and you learn enough to do a little handshake conversation with the people.And, in this case, it's like knowing how to get around in your niche in ten Latin family languages and talking about learning enough, say, Japanese, to go there and try to work as an engineering manager on products for the Japanese market.Although that example might not hit home if you're the kind of guy who thinks knowing the word "kiai" makes you both a jiujutsu master and a Japanese master.I have seen C written like good CoBOL.
You will not see CoBOL written like good C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655895</id>
	<title>Re:Here is to....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247227020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, why?</p><p>Mainframes are fucking rock solid, reliable pieces of equipment.</p><p>They do the damned job like nobody's business.<br>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 have n't kept the people along with the software we chose to run on them decades ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655931</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>JPLemme</author>
	<datestamp>1247227260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>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.<br> <br>

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!"<br> <br>

My favorite line was "Being on a COBOL dev team is like living in a dorm."</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n'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 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721</id>
	<title>Here is to....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247226000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hoping they hire them back to FUCKING MIGRATE ALREADY!</p><p>If Mainframe does not die by itself, we should kill it for the sake of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hoping they hire them back to FUCKING MIGRATE ALREADY ! If Mainframe does not die by itself , we should kill it for the sake of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hoping they hire them back to FUCKING MIGRATE ALREADY!If Mainframe does not die by itself, we should kill it for the sake of the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28659969</id>
	<title>What, no Indian Company heard of this yet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247327100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought we would be seeing a flood of 20 yearld 'consultants' with 30 years experience in COBOL in their resumes, all of it with some software company in India,  already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we would be seeing a flood of 20 yearld 'consultants ' with 30 years experience in COBOL in their resumes , all of it with some software company in India , already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we would be seeing a flood of 20 yearld 'consultants' with 30 years experience in COBOL in their resumes, all of it with some software company in India,  already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658173</id>
	<title>Re:The modern mainframe - Who cares about COBOL?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247255940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If mainframes offer a superior value proposition then why is there not more hosted mainframe type services where companies pay for mainframe time and services to run the software of their choice? If the software environment is virtualized, which is increasingly the case with languages such as Java and C#, then why does the hardware platform matter so much? Perhaps I am missing something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If mainframes offer a superior value proposition then why is there not more hosted mainframe type services where companies pay for mainframe time and services to run the software of their choice ?
If the software environment is virtualized , which is increasingly the case with languages such as Java and C # , then why does the hardware platform matter so much ?
Perhaps I am missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If mainframes offer a superior value proposition then why is there not more hosted mainframe type services where companies pay for mainframe time and services to run the software of their choice?
If the software environment is virtualized, which is increasingly the case with languages such as Java and C#, then why does the hardware platform matter so much?
Perhaps I am missing something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247226720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being a maintenance programmer sucks. Designing is fun, and modern languages are far less tedious than their ancestors.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being a maintenance programmer sucks .
Designing is fun , and modern languages are far less tedious than their ancestors.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 is n't so bad when it means you can retire a decade earlier than otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being a maintenance programmer sucks.
Designing is fun, and modern languages are far less tedious than their ancestors.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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656667</id>
	<title>"... like living in a dorm."</title>
	<author>reiisi</author>
	<datestamp>1247233740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heh.</p><p>Good analogy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heh.Good analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heh.Good analogy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656111</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1247228880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why would you higher a "Cobol" coder to program Cobol</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why would you higher a " Cobol " coder to program CobolBecause most " web programmers " we know of do not know how to spell .
Our COBOL programming interface ( terminal based ) does n'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 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why would you higher a "Cobol" coder to program CobolBecause 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.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656157</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>farmkid</author>
	<datestamp>1247229240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point about the language is right, but, hey, it was originally conceived as a COmmon Business Oriented Language, i.e. report generator.  Like the first language I learned, RPG (and no, it wasn't related to role playing games) it does mundane things like tabulating columnar data reasonably well, and anything else with excruciating pain.  If at all.</p><p>But mainframes aren't just about the obsolete languages we associate with them; they're a rock-solid platform for a lot of things that were never foreseen forty years ago.  Heck, you can run a bunch of virtual Linux instances with a lot more faith in the underlying platform than you can on Intel.  This, and not COBOL, is why they're still around and still popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point about the language is right , but , hey , it was originally conceived as a COmmon Business Oriented Language , i.e .
report generator .
Like the first language I learned , RPG ( and no , it was n't related to role playing games ) it does mundane things like tabulating columnar data reasonably well , and anything else with excruciating pain .
If at all.But mainframes are n't just about the obsolete languages we associate with them ; they 're a rock-solid platform for a lot of things that were never foreseen forty years ago .
Heck , you can run a bunch of virtual Linux instances with a lot more faith in the underlying platform than you can on Intel .
This , and not COBOL , is why they 're still around and still popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point about the language is right, but, hey, it was originally conceived as a COmmon Business Oriented Language, i.e.
report generator.
Like the first language I learned, RPG (and no, it wasn't related to role playing games) it does mundane things like tabulating columnar data reasonably well, and anything else with excruciating pain.
If at all.But mainframes aren't just about the obsolete languages we associate with them; they're a rock-solid platform for a lot of things that were never foreseen forty years ago.
Heck, you can run a bunch of virtual Linux instances with a lot more faith in the underlying platform than you can on Intel.
This, and not COBOL, is why they're still around and still popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658579</id>
	<title>Re:Here is to....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247307120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Idiot!</p><p>The commercial world would grind to a fucking halt!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot ! The commercial world would grind to a fucking halt !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot!The commercial world would grind to a fucking halt!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656779</id>
	<title>Bad bean counting</title>
	<author>Hoi Polloi</author>
	<datestamp>1247235000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...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.</p></div><p>I've found this to be true of many aspects of IT, not just concerning mainframes.  I've watched customers struggle to get decent performance and constantly hit limitations with a certain database product (not Oracle) because it was virtually free and they didn't want to spend the capital cost on an Oracle license.  The total man hours spent, time lost, etc on getting their "free" db up to speed vastly exceeded the cost of the Oracle licenses and they still have problems with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...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.I 've found this to be true of many aspects of IT , not just concerning mainframes .
I 've watched customers struggle to get decent performance and constantly hit limitations with a certain database product ( not Oracle ) because it was virtually free and they did n't want to spend the capital cost on an Oracle license .
The total man hours spent , time lost , etc on getting their " free " db up to speed vastly exceeded the cost of the Oracle licenses and they still have problems with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...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.I've found this to be true of many aspects of IT, not just concerning mainframes.
I've watched customers struggle to get decent performance and constantly hit limitations with a certain database product (not Oracle) because it was virtually free and they didn't want to spend the capital cost on an Oracle license.
The total man hours spent, time lost, etc on getting their "free" db up to speed vastly exceeded the cost of the Oracle licenses and they still have problems with it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658493</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247305380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they should learn COBOL as a way to insure them a prosperous career.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fire, theft or all risks?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they should learn COBOL as a way to insure them a prosperous career.Fire , theft or all risks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they should learn COBOL as a way to insure them a prosperous career.Fire, theft or all risks?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>MindStalker</author>
	<datestamp>1247227740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if a sorta COBOL decompiler would be helpful. Something that would interpret COBOL into a modern language with 100\% perfection (not neccesarily perfection in looking good but perfection in producing the same program bug for bug) ?? IS this possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if a sorta COBOL decompiler would be helpful .
Something that would interpret COBOL into a modern language with 100 \ % perfection ( not neccesarily perfection in looking good but perfection in producing the same program bug for bug ) ? ?
IS this possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if a sorta COBOL decompiler would be helpful.
Something that would interpret COBOL into a modern language with 100\% perfection (not neccesarily perfection in looking good but perfection in producing the same program bug for bug) ??
IS this possible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656769</id>
	<title>decompilers?</title>
	<author>reiisi</author>
	<datestamp>1247234820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds great.</p><p>Except you must realize that you are essentially talking about decompiling a language that is already in many ways at assembly language level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds great.Except you must realize that you are essentially talking about decompiling a language that is already in many ways at assembly language level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds great.Except you must realize that you are essentially talking about decompiling a language that is already in many ways at assembly language level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656229</id>
	<title>Re:VAX</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1247229900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Vax is a minicomputer.  The minicomputers really are dying.  None of them are being made now, unless you count IBMs successor to the AS/400 (the iSeries?).</p><p>OTOH, Big Iron still owns the business computing high end, with no real threat yet in sight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Vax is a minicomputer .
The minicomputers really are dying .
None of them are being made now , unless you count IBMs successor to the AS/400 ( the iSeries ?
) .OTOH , Big Iron still owns the business computing high end , with no real threat yet in sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Vax is a minicomputer.
The minicomputers really are dying.
None of them are being made now, unless you count IBMs successor to the AS/400 (the iSeries?
).OTOH, Big Iron still owns the business computing high end, with no real threat yet in sight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655893</id>
	<title>VAX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247227020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were just discussing VAX at work.  I personally never got to work on one, but a guy I work with grew up learning on them.  He said only guys his age really knew much about VAX and I said he was wrong as several guys I grew up with worked at banks that used them.</p><p>Mainfames are like Cobol, they aren't going away until the systems that use them die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were just discussing VAX at work .
I personally never got to work on one , but a guy I work with grew up learning on them .
He said only guys his age really knew much about VAX and I said he was wrong as several guys I grew up with worked at banks that used them.Mainfames are like Cobol , they are n't going away until the systems that use them die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were just discussing VAX at work.
I personally never got to work on one, but a guy I work with grew up learning on them.
He said only guys his age really knew much about VAX and I said he was wrong as several guys I grew up with worked at banks that used them.Mainfames are like Cobol, they aren't going away until the systems that use them die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658349</id>
	<title>Re:i hear that linux users...</title>
	<author>Ex-MislTech</author>
	<datestamp>1247345400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Balmer go back to bed, you can count your stock options tomorrow to feel better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Balmer go back to bed , you can count your stock options tomorrow to feel better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Balmer go back to bed, you can count your stock options tomorrow to feel better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657369</id>
	<title>wtf is a mainframe?</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1247241900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used them in school in the 80s; know about channels, VMs, CICS, MVS etc... but what makes them a distinct entity?  How is an E10K not a mainframe?   Is it just EBCDIC and old system software?</p><p>If it is just EBCDIC and old system software; shouldn't the article read "even IBM can't figure out how their computers work", at least as a byline?</p><p>COBOL is just another language; any poor sod that had their head stuffed into the C++/JAVA/C# grinder should find it a welcome break. A bit like a tricycle rather than an oceanliner, but a vehicle that can actually move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used them in school in the 80s ; know about channels , VMs , CICS , MVS etc... but what makes them a distinct entity ?
How is an E10K not a mainframe ?
Is it just EBCDIC and old system software ? If it is just EBCDIC and old system software ; should n't the article read " even IBM ca n't figure out how their computers work " , at least as a byline ? COBOL is just another language ; any poor sod that had their head stuffed into the C + + /JAVA/C # grinder should find it a welcome break .
A bit like a tricycle rather than an oceanliner , but a vehicle that can actually move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used them in school in the 80s; know about channels, VMs, CICS, MVS etc... but what makes them a distinct entity?
How is an E10K not a mainframe?
Is it just EBCDIC and old system software?If it is just EBCDIC and old system software; shouldn't the article read "even IBM can't figure out how their computers work", at least as a byline?COBOL is just another language; any poor sod that had their head stuffed into the C++/JAVA/C# grinder should find it a welcome break.
A bit like a tricycle rather than an oceanliner, but a vehicle that can actually move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657201</id>
	<title>Re:Here is to....</title>
	<author>Ritchie70</author>
	<datestamp>1247239800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The software also works because the OS is inherently predictable, stable, and fault tolerant. It just works right.</p><p>Contrast that with the Windows universe, where things just don't work sometimes, and the admin's first response is often to reboot.</p><p>I'm not saying Linux is any better; I'm honestly not sure. I know the Windows systems at work give us no end of troubles, whereas the old Unix systems are orders of magnitude more stable. The only place I use Linux at work is an old version of Red Hat on a file server almost nobody uses; it's been rock-solid, but the Ubuntu here at home is increasingly flaky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The software also works because the OS is inherently predictable , stable , and fault tolerant .
It just works right.Contrast that with the Windows universe , where things just do n't work sometimes , and the admin 's first response is often to reboot.I 'm not saying Linux is any better ; I 'm honestly not sure .
I know the Windows systems at work give us no end of troubles , whereas the old Unix systems are orders of magnitude more stable .
The only place I use Linux at work is an old version of Red Hat on a file server almost nobody uses ; it 's been rock-solid , but the Ubuntu here at home is increasingly flaky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The software also works because the OS is inherently predictable, stable, and fault tolerant.
It just works right.Contrast that with the Windows universe, where things just don't work sometimes, and the admin's first response is often to reboot.I'm not saying Linux is any better; I'm honestly not sure.
I know the Windows systems at work give us no end of troubles, whereas the old Unix systems are orders of magnitude more stable.
The only place I use Linux at work is an old version of Red Hat on a file server almost nobody uses; it's been rock-solid, but the Ubuntu here at home is increasingly flaky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655687</id>
	<title>i hear that linux users...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247225760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i hear linux users are picking up part time work as homosexual male prostitutes. they're not doing it for the money but just to get pounded up the ass. <br> <br>faggots need to die!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i hear linux users are picking up part time work as homosexual male prostitutes .
they 're not doing it for the money but just to get pounded up the ass .
faggots need to die !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hear linux users are picking up part time work as homosexual male prostitutes.
they're not doing it for the money but just to get pounded up the ass.
faggots need to die!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655827</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1247226540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If recruitment would be any easier if the offer included the right to shout "Where is your 'right-sizing' now, bitches?" into the face of the nearest PHB at will, in addition to the fat salary?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If recruitment would be any easier if the offer included the right to shout " Where is your 'right-sizing ' now , bitches ?
" into the face of the nearest PHB at will , in addition to the fat salary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If recruitment would be any easier if the offer included the right to shout "Where is your 'right-sizing' now, bitches?
" into the face of the nearest PHB at will, in addition to the fat salary?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655799</id>
	<title>Teaching UNIX security experts to use mainframes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247226360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you'll excuse the shameless self promotion, this book teaches UNIX security people how to use Mainframes: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mainframe-Basics-Security-Professionals-Getting/dp/0131738569/ref=pd\_bbs\_sr\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1202746607&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Mainframe-Basics-Security-Professionals-Getting/dp/0131738569/ref=pd\_bbs\_sr\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1202746607&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 'll excuse the shameless self promotion , this book teaches UNIX security people how to use Mainframes : http : //www.amazon.com/Mainframe-Basics-Security-Professionals-Getting/dp/0131738569/ref = pd \ _bbs \ _sr \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1202746607&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you'll excuse the shameless self promotion, this book teaches UNIX security people how to use Mainframes: http://www.amazon.com/Mainframe-Basics-Security-Professionals-Getting/dp/0131738569/ref=pd\_bbs\_sr\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1202746607&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657083</id>
	<title>Re:The modern mainframe - Who cares about COBOL?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1247238360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just hate to see mainframes maligned as "obsolete" by people who don't understand what they are now.</p></div></blockquote><p>IBM should market them as "360-based Severs".<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just hate to see mainframes maligned as " obsolete " by people who do n't understand what they are now.IBM should market them as " 360-based Severs " .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just hate to see mainframes maligned as "obsolete" by people who don't understand what they are now.IBM should market them as "360-based Severs".
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656655</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1247233620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better than learning COBOL is to learn the business concepts that have historically been coded in COBOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better than learning COBOL is to learn the business concepts that have historically been coded in COBOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better than learning COBOL is to learn the business concepts that have historically been coded in COBOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657013</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247237520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why has nobody bootstrapped themselves a bit by writing some libraries or extending/improving the language?<br>Or at least written a good editor.  It's been around for a long time.  Hasn't some bored guru written his own vi/emacs clone for it in the last 40 years?<br>Or improved the compiler to make the errors easier to understand?<br>Or addressed any of the other complaints I've seen upthread?</p><p>Seriously... Is there something about cobol that makes that effectively impossible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why has nobody bootstrapped themselves a bit by writing some libraries or extending/improving the language ? Or at least written a good editor .
It 's been around for a long time .
Has n't some bored guru written his own vi/emacs clone for it in the last 40 years ? Or improved the compiler to make the errors easier to understand ? Or addressed any of the other complaints I 've seen upthread ? Seriously... Is there something about cobol that makes that effectively impossible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why has nobody bootstrapped themselves a bit by writing some libraries or extending/improving the language?Or at least written a good editor.
It's been around for a long time.
Hasn't some bored guru written his own vi/emacs clone for it in the last 40 years?Or improved the compiler to make the errors easier to understand?Or addressed any of the other complaints I've seen upthread?Seriously... Is there something about cobol that makes that effectively impossible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658567</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247306940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>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.</p></div></blockquote><p>I call bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n'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 call bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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 call bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656181</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1247229540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cross compilers aren't hard, but the code they produce isn't at all easy to maintain.  It's going to be far easier to maintain the COBOL than to maintain Java automatically generated from COBOL (well, right up until you can't buy a COBOL compiler for your platform).</p><p>I've had to support code in one language that was automatically generated from another, and it is really a last resort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cross compilers are n't hard , but the code they produce is n't at all easy to maintain .
It 's going to be far easier to maintain the COBOL than to maintain Java automatically generated from COBOL ( well , right up until you ca n't buy a COBOL compiler for your platform ) .I 've had to support code in one language that was automatically generated from another , and it is really a last resort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cross compilers aren't hard, but the code they produce isn't at all easy to maintain.
It's going to be far easier to maintain the COBOL than to maintain Java automatically generated from COBOL (well, right up until you can't buy a COBOL compiler for your platform).I've had to support code in one language that was automatically generated from another, and it is really a last resort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658211</id>
	<title>OT - Your sig</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1247343000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds interesting; what does it mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds interesting ; what does it mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds interesting; what does it mean?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656277</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1247230380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds familiar. In 1997 I took a course in system administration, and one of the other students there told me a similar anecdote:<br>If you believe that guy, a few years ago, DEC had fired a bunch of experienced big iron programmers (albeit with nice severance packages). Later they found that their newly hired developers were good on PCs but had not much knowledge about mainframes. DEC ended up hiring the old guys back as consultants<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds familiar .
In 1997 I took a course in system administration , and one of the other students there told me a similar anecdote : If you believe that guy , a few years ago , DEC had fired a bunch of experienced big iron programmers ( albeit with nice severance packages ) .
Later they found that their newly hired developers were good on PCs but had not much knowledge about mainframes .
DEC ended up hiring the old guys back as consultants ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds familiar.
In 1997 I took a course in system administration, and one of the other students there told me a similar anecdote:If you believe that guy, a few years ago, DEC had fired a bunch of experienced big iron programmers (albeit with nice severance packages).
Later they found that their newly hired developers were good on PCs but had not much knowledge about mainframes.
DEC ended up hiring the old guys back as consultants ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28664661</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247321340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>COBOL is an odd beast, with no pointer/references...</p></div><p>Haven't looked at COBOL in quite a few years, have you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>COBOL is an odd beast , with no pointer/references...Have n't looked at COBOL in quite a few years , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COBOL is an odd beast, with no pointer/references...Haven't looked at COBOL in quite a few years, have you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656217</id>
	<title>Re:Here is to....</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1247229780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People die. That's a fact you need to work into any business decisions that have impact for more than 10 years.</p><p>To replace people, you need new people. And new people like to work with new technology. Mainframes (the hardware) do their job damn well, but mainframes (the software) are stuck so far in the past you can't even see it. A memory that will always stick with me is seeing a nervous girl fresh out of college (maybe even in college) trying to explain to a room full of 60-year-olds an exciting new feature of the next release of COBOL- which I'm almost entirely sure was: A "FOR" LOOP (it may have even been a "for each" loop)</p><p>the software doesn't work because the software is good. It's not. The software works because so much is riding on it working- it's tested a LOT more than anything released on the web.<br>A website has an error, the people viewing that page are inconvenienced for five minutes while someone responds to an e-mail and removes a stray semicolon. A ten-thousand-transactions-per-second program has an error, and you've got problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People die .
That 's a fact you need to work into any business decisions that have impact for more than 10 years.To replace people , you need new people .
And new people like to work with new technology .
Mainframes ( the hardware ) do their job damn well , but mainframes ( the software ) are stuck so far in the past you ca n't even see it .
A memory that will always stick with me is seeing a nervous girl fresh out of college ( maybe even in college ) trying to explain to a room full of 60-year-olds an exciting new feature of the next release of COBOL- which I 'm almost entirely sure was : A " FOR " LOOP ( it may have even been a " for each " loop ) the software does n't work because the software is good .
It 's not .
The software works because so much is riding on it working- it 's tested a LOT more than anything released on the web.A website has an error , the people viewing that page are inconvenienced for five minutes while someone responds to an e-mail and removes a stray semicolon .
A ten-thousand-transactions-per-second program has an error , and you 've got problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People die.
That's a fact you need to work into any business decisions that have impact for more than 10 years.To replace people, you need new people.
And new people like to work with new technology.
Mainframes (the hardware) do their job damn well, but mainframes (the software) are stuck so far in the past you can't even see it.
A memory that will always stick with me is seeing a nervous girl fresh out of college (maybe even in college) trying to explain to a room full of 60-year-olds an exciting new feature of the next release of COBOL- which I'm almost entirely sure was: A "FOR" LOOP (it may have even been a "for each" loop)the software doesn't work because the software is good.
It's not.
The software works because so much is riding on it working- it's tested a LOT more than anything released on the web.A website has an error, the people viewing that page are inconvenienced for five minutes while someone responds to an e-mail and removes a stray semicolon.
A ten-thousand-transactions-per-second program has an error, and you've got problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655895</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656815</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247235180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I make six figures doing C++, and that's with graduating in 2004.</p><p>Money is out there, you just have to go to it.  No need to stick to Cobol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I make six figures doing C + + , and that 's with graduating in 2004.Money is out there , you just have to go to it .
No need to stick to Cobol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make six figures doing C++, and that's with graduating in 2004.Money is out there, you just have to go to it.
No need to stick to Cobol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657591</id>
	<title>This? Again?</title>
	<author>dmarcov</author>
	<datestamp>1247244960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read this exact story in '98. Y2K. All those mainframes with COBOL code and nobody to write it because CompSCI majors didn't learn it anymore.</p><p>We always seem to muddle through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this exact story in '98 .
Y2K. All those mainframes with COBOL code and nobody to write it because CompSCI majors did n't learn it anymore.We always seem to muddle through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this exact story in '98.
Y2K. All those mainframes with COBOL code and nobody to write it because CompSCI majors didn't learn it anymore.We always seem to muddle through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658935</id>
	<title>huh.  from what I have seen,</title>
	<author>LukeCrawford</author>
	<datestamp>1247314380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Finding people who know how to properly use oracle is a real bear.   Sure, you can hire people with oracle experience, but most of them were the 'corporate DBA' types who don't know how to do anything out side of the script.  I can't tell you how many clients I've seen struggling with their oracle installs;  either because the system does not perform as promised, or because the 'cluster' needs to be rebooted every time one node crashes in an unexpected manner.
<br>
<br>
Now, I'm just the Linux janitor, not a DBA, but when I see those problems on MySQL or PostgreSQL, I  can fix them.  I've replaced more than one MSSQL database with a MySQL setup, and often see orders of magnitude speed increases that I suspect are due to misconfiguration of the proprietary database.    The  open-source stuff is just plain easier to use, at least for Linux janitors like me,  and has better support.
<br>
<br>
 I'm sure Oracle and MSSQL are both fine databases if you know how to use it and you configure it correctly;  I'm just saying that paying a lot of money doesn't relieve you from needing to know those things.   You still need to pay for a technician who actually understands it.  The advantage of the free (as in freedom) products is that there are a whole lot more people with real (that is, non-scripted, where you need to do something new or are expected to solve a problem beyond 'reboot and apply the redo logs') experience with the free databases than with multi-million dollar oracle installs, and that sometimes your expensive support people just shrug and say 'I don't know.  why don't you upgrade your linux kernel.'
<br>
<br>
Sticking with the free stuff, using a search engine such as google gets you pretty good support for commonly used free software.   Often better support than what you get when you pay lots of money for support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finding people who know how to properly use oracle is a real bear .
Sure , you can hire people with oracle experience , but most of them were the 'corporate DBA ' types who do n't know how to do anything out side of the script .
I ca n't tell you how many clients I 've seen struggling with their oracle installs ; either because the system does not perform as promised , or because the 'cluster ' needs to be rebooted every time one node crashes in an unexpected manner .
Now , I 'm just the Linux janitor , not a DBA , but when I see those problems on MySQL or PostgreSQL , I can fix them .
I 've replaced more than one MSSQL database with a MySQL setup , and often see orders of magnitude speed increases that I suspect are due to misconfiguration of the proprietary database .
The open-source stuff is just plain easier to use , at least for Linux janitors like me , and has better support .
I 'm sure Oracle and MSSQL are both fine databases if you know how to use it and you configure it correctly ; I 'm just saying that paying a lot of money does n't relieve you from needing to know those things .
You still need to pay for a technician who actually understands it .
The advantage of the free ( as in freedom ) products is that there are a whole lot more people with real ( that is , non-scripted , where you need to do something new or are expected to solve a problem beyond 'reboot and apply the redo logs ' ) experience with the free databases than with multi-million dollar oracle installs , and that sometimes your expensive support people just shrug and say 'I do n't know .
why do n't you upgrade your linux kernel .
' Sticking with the free stuff , using a search engine such as google gets you pretty good support for commonly used free software .
Often better support than what you get when you pay lots of money for support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Finding people who know how to properly use oracle is a real bear.
Sure, you can hire people with oracle experience, but most of them were the 'corporate DBA' types who don't know how to do anything out side of the script.
I can't tell you how many clients I've seen struggling with their oracle installs;  either because the system does not perform as promised, or because the 'cluster' needs to be rebooted every time one node crashes in an unexpected manner.
Now, I'm just the Linux janitor, not a DBA, but when I see those problems on MySQL or PostgreSQL, I  can fix them.
I've replaced more than one MSSQL database with a MySQL setup, and often see orders of magnitude speed increases that I suspect are due to misconfiguration of the proprietary database.
The  open-source stuff is just plain easier to use, at least for Linux janitors like me,  and has better support.
I'm sure Oracle and MSSQL are both fine databases if you know how to use it and you configure it correctly;  I'm just saying that paying a lot of money doesn't relieve you from needing to know those things.
You still need to pay for a technician who actually understands it.
The advantage of the free (as in freedom) products is that there are a whole lot more people with real (that is, non-scripted, where you need to do something new or are expected to solve a problem beyond 'reboot and apply the redo logs') experience with the free databases than with multi-million dollar oracle installs, and that sometimes your expensive support people just shrug and say 'I don't know.
why don't you upgrade your linux kernel.
'


Sticking with the free stuff, using a search engine such as google gets you pretty good support for commonly used free software.
Often better support than what you get when you pay lots of money for support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656119</id>
	<title>Re:Not a new phenomenon</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1247228940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>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.</p><p>MULTIPLY FOO BY BAR GIVING QUX.   - Actual math syntax (never used, I expect, but humorous).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>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 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>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).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28661909</id>
	<title>Re:Bad bean counting</title>
	<author>Guido von Guido</author>
	<datestamp>1247340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've found this to be true of many aspects of IT, not just concerning mainframes.</p></div><p>This is pretty much universally true of all areas. Before I got into IT, I worked at a division of a company that did pesticide studies for companies (among other things) to help them get pesticides registered with the EPA. This meant that someone would grow the crops, apply the pesticides to the crops, and sample the crops and the soil at various point to see whether or not the pesticide and various by-products wound up in the finished product or the soil. Typically we'd have a large backlog of samples to analyze, which we kept frozen in a couple of trucks out back. My boss kept hounding management to build a really big freezer building so we could house the samples more safely and more cheaply. Nope, he was told it was too expensive. Nor would management shell out for an automatic temperature monitoring system, which also cost too much.
</p><p>Well, one Friday afternoon somebody accidentally flipped the switch that put one of the freezer trucks--the one with the most samples--to defrost. Security was supposed to check the temperature at least once a day over the weekend, but they were just filling in the log entries without actually doing it. By the time somebody discovered it on Monday morning, the sides of the truck were literally bulging outwards. The stench was unbearable, and all the samples were ruined.
</p><p>
Naturally, anybody who had samples in that freezer was pissed. In most cases, the study had to be redone, which meant a delay of a year (since the pesticide had to be reapplied in the field). The insurance money went to redoing the field portion of the study for those customers that trusted us to do it again, but of course we lost a majority of the customers we had. I'm sure the lawyers had a field day, too. The net result of it was my division hung on for a few years, surviving largely on some of the other areas in which we did work. A few years later they sold off the burnt shell to another company. I was long gone before then.
</p><p>
So yeah, that's kind of an extreme example, but if you dig around companies in almost any field you'll find examples of how the bean counters can hurt the bottom line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found this to be true of many aspects of IT , not just concerning mainframes.This is pretty much universally true of all areas .
Before I got into IT , I worked at a division of a company that did pesticide studies for companies ( among other things ) to help them get pesticides registered with the EPA .
This meant that someone would grow the crops , apply the pesticides to the crops , and sample the crops and the soil at various point to see whether or not the pesticide and various by-products wound up in the finished product or the soil .
Typically we 'd have a large backlog of samples to analyze , which we kept frozen in a couple of trucks out back .
My boss kept hounding management to build a really big freezer building so we could house the samples more safely and more cheaply .
Nope , he was told it was too expensive .
Nor would management shell out for an automatic temperature monitoring system , which also cost too much .
Well , one Friday afternoon somebody accidentally flipped the switch that put one of the freezer trucks--the one with the most samples--to defrost .
Security was supposed to check the temperature at least once a day over the weekend , but they were just filling in the log entries without actually doing it .
By the time somebody discovered it on Monday morning , the sides of the truck were literally bulging outwards .
The stench was unbearable , and all the samples were ruined .
Naturally , anybody who had samples in that freezer was pissed .
In most cases , the study had to be redone , which meant a delay of a year ( since the pesticide had to be reapplied in the field ) .
The insurance money went to redoing the field portion of the study for those customers that trusted us to do it again , but of course we lost a majority of the customers we had .
I 'm sure the lawyers had a field day , too .
The net result of it was my division hung on for a few years , surviving largely on some of the other areas in which we did work .
A few years later they sold off the burnt shell to another company .
I was long gone before then .
So yeah , that 's kind of an extreme example , but if you dig around companies in almost any field you 'll find examples of how the bean counters can hurt the bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found this to be true of many aspects of IT, not just concerning mainframes.This is pretty much universally true of all areas.
Before I got into IT, I worked at a division of a company that did pesticide studies for companies (among other things) to help them get pesticides registered with the EPA.
This meant that someone would grow the crops, apply the pesticides to the crops, and sample the crops and the soil at various point to see whether or not the pesticide and various by-products wound up in the finished product or the soil.
Typically we'd have a large backlog of samples to analyze, which we kept frozen in a couple of trucks out back.
My boss kept hounding management to build a really big freezer building so we could house the samples more safely and more cheaply.
Nope, he was told it was too expensive.
Nor would management shell out for an automatic temperature monitoring system, which also cost too much.
Well, one Friday afternoon somebody accidentally flipped the switch that put one of the freezer trucks--the one with the most samples--to defrost.
Security was supposed to check the temperature at least once a day over the weekend, but they were just filling in the log entries without actually doing it.
By the time somebody discovered it on Monday morning, the sides of the truck were literally bulging outwards.
The stench was unbearable, and all the samples were ruined.
Naturally, anybody who had samples in that freezer was pissed.
In most cases, the study had to be redone, which meant a delay of a year (since the pesticide had to be reapplied in the field).
The insurance money went to redoing the field portion of the study for those customers that trusted us to do it again, but of course we lost a majority of the customers we had.
I'm sure the lawyers had a field day, too.
The net result of it was my division hung on for a few years, surviving largely on some of the other areas in which we did work.
A few years later they sold off the burnt shell to another company.
I was long gone before then.
So yeah, that's kind of an extreme example, but if you dig around companies in almost any field you'll find examples of how the bean counters can hurt the bottom line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657367</id>
	<title>The mainframe mindset</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1247241900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong. Mainframe hardware is great for big database/large I/O type work. But the reason we tried to get away from hosting things on mainframes was what we referred to as 'the mainframe mindset'. Everything was a batch job, placed into a scheduling queue and done in its own good time. Any attempt to get our IT people to re-engineer the processes met screams and the "you just don't understand" howls reminiscent of leaving the toilet seat up at home. So we (engineering) bought a little Sun server and built our own engineering configuration control system.
</p><p>We took a data release process that ran once a week (because the mainframe guys said it had to wait its turn behind the budget report jobs) and converted it to a "just in time" process. As a result, we eliminated a bunch of error prone, paper based interim change processes. No longer needed, since there was no longer any need to track changes made between weekly "release points". The factory loved us. The correct data was on line (web-based, which was something the mainframe people didn't 'get'). QA kissed our feet, not having to chase paper changes effective since the last batch run. But the IT guys screamed and pointed out how, if scaled up, the Sun server solution would be more expensive than a mainframe. If everyone went out and bought their own. So management went back to the mainframe. And the weekly batch job.
</p><p>The new process could have been built on a DB hosted on that mainframe. But we never could pry the old, boney, arthritic hands of our IT department off the system. So whatever ran on the big iron had to run their way. So lets keep the mainframes. But retire the geezers.
</p><p>Whew! That sure was cathartic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong .
Mainframe hardware is great for big database/large I/O type work .
But the reason we tried to get away from hosting things on mainframes was what we referred to as 'the mainframe mindset' .
Everything was a batch job , placed into a scheduling queue and done in its own good time .
Any attempt to get our IT people to re-engineer the processes met screams and the " you just do n't understand " howls reminiscent of leaving the toilet seat up at home .
So we ( engineering ) bought a little Sun server and built our own engineering configuration control system .
We took a data release process that ran once a week ( because the mainframe guys said it had to wait its turn behind the budget report jobs ) and converted it to a " just in time " process .
As a result , we eliminated a bunch of error prone , paper based interim change processes .
No longer needed , since there was no longer any need to track changes made between weekly " release points " .
The factory loved us .
The correct data was on line ( web-based , which was something the mainframe people did n't 'get ' ) .
QA kissed our feet , not having to chase paper changes effective since the last batch run .
But the IT guys screamed and pointed out how , if scaled up , the Sun server solution would be more expensive than a mainframe .
If everyone went out and bought their own .
So management went back to the mainframe .
And the weekly batch job .
The new process could have been built on a DB hosted on that mainframe .
But we never could pry the old , boney , arthritic hands of our IT department off the system .
So whatever ran on the big iron had to run their way .
So lets keep the mainframes .
But retire the geezers .
Whew ! That sure was cathartic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong.
Mainframe hardware is great for big database/large I/O type work.
But the reason we tried to get away from hosting things on mainframes was what we referred to as 'the mainframe mindset'.
Everything was a batch job, placed into a scheduling queue and done in its own good time.
Any attempt to get our IT people to re-engineer the processes met screams and the "you just don't understand" howls reminiscent of leaving the toilet seat up at home.
So we (engineering) bought a little Sun server and built our own engineering configuration control system.
We took a data release process that ran once a week (because the mainframe guys said it had to wait its turn behind the budget report jobs) and converted it to a "just in time" process.
As a result, we eliminated a bunch of error prone, paper based interim change processes.
No longer needed, since there was no longer any need to track changes made between weekly "release points".
The factory loved us.
The correct data was on line (web-based, which was something the mainframe people didn't 'get').
QA kissed our feet, not having to chase paper changes effective since the last batch run.
But the IT guys screamed and pointed out how, if scaled up, the Sun server solution would be more expensive than a mainframe.
If everyone went out and bought their own.
So management went back to the mainframe.
And the weekly batch job.
The new process could have been built on a DB hosted on that mainframe.
But we never could pry the old, boney, arthritic hands of our IT department off the system.
So whatever ran on the big iron had to run their way.
So lets keep the mainframes.
But retire the geezers.
Whew! That sure was cathartic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655901</id>
	<title>Re:Cobol vs. Data Entry</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1247227080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might I add one point, since this about programming on mainframes.  Ken Thompson once said:</p><p>"Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale along the beach!"</p><p>Actually, TFA was about sysadmins, and not programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might I add one point , since this about programming on mainframes .
Ken Thompson once said : " Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale along the beach !
" Actually , TFA was about sysadmins , and not programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might I add one point, since this about programming on mainframes.
Ken Thompson once said:"Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale along the beach!
"Actually, TFA was about sysadmins, and not programmers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28661727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28665237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28665151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28659883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28664661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28663695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28661909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28662537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_10_200204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28665151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655703
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656119
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28664661
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28665237
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656217
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28661909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28663695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28659883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28662537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28658211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28657089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_10_200204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28655893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28661727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_10_200204.28656635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
