All you have ever wanted to know about Linux on the mainframe
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
Writing code in assembly language on a mainframe my first year in college was actually a lot of fun. YMMV.
When I was in school, IBM occasionally had z/OS programming contests and would provide an environment for student competitors.
My first job out of university in 1996 was doing COBOL programming on mainframes for the federal government of Canada, and my first project was to rewrite a program originally written in 1972 that had changed very little since then. I have little doubt that after almost 15 years my rewrite is still much the same.
Anyway, I quickly realized that the mainframe environment doesn't exactly foster technical innovation so I moved on and am quite happy to have not sat in front a "green screen" in over a decade.
Mainframes are built to never stop, to never give you a headache and to never, ever surprise you.
Working in a Windows environment -- you will be given Administrator access to anything you ask for.
Working in a Linux environment -- you will be given a normal account and be able to SU to root
Working in a UNIX (Solaris/AIX/HP-UX) environment -- you will be given a normal account and the option to SUDO certain commands
Working in a zOS environment -- you wont be granted a login or allowed within 50 feet of the precious server.
Not including the rest of the mainframe. Plus support. and you can't scale it in realtime.
Mainframes are absolutely fabulous creatures capable of amazing feats. But the culture/pricing around them has not kept up with the times. I wish it would have because a small mainframe would be a good choice for many purposes.
What do you mean by this?
You can't resize the images? Sure you can.
You can't add more virtual servers quickly? Of course you can. I'm told by a mainframe-operator acquaintance that Linux on z/VM can spin up hundreds of instances per minute.
You can't get the mainframe to run faster? Tosh. IBM generally oversupply you with CPU capacity; if you need more you can ring up and they will reconfigure them remotely to add CPU power.
Other advantages: a zSeries mainframe is extremely reliable, IBM's service is expensive but extremely thorough and unlike other virtual server environments it enforces partitioning at a hardware level, and much more completely. No more mysterious performance variation due to bursty neighbours.
Yeesh. The way I've heard it, this is due to a peculiar approach in mainframe development. Programs tend to assume isolated use of dedicated hardware, so they have to resort to creating ludicrous numbers of virtual mainframes rather than letting the programs coexist and interact within a single kernel.
There is a supposed higher security in zOS partitioning -- but I have no idea what EAL Levels really mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_Assurance_Level
If you want a multiprocessing OS, you can just use Linux on z/VM.
Yes, I'm aware that IBM wants you to lease mainframe hardware rather than actually buy it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/IBM-S-390-G5-Parallel-Enterprise-Server-...
The interesting thing about mainframe hardware is that it's designed to last forever, so the "old" stuff (which really means "brand new" stuff in mainframe terms) is still interesting.