Who's idea was LINC?
Jeff W Morris
indicated that LINC was developed in the Arabian desert (not by Arabs!).
This is what I was lead to believe long ago on a LINC 10.3 programming
course. My statement has been disputed by a reader who is also not sure of
the origins.
There are many NG participants who thrive on history.
How and where did LINC come about?
Dr Jeff W Morris: Pretoria Software Solutions
One of the largest LINC software houses in the Southern Hemisphere
Specialising in 'offshore' systems development and maintenance Worldwide
JB
the Saudi Arabian desert. They came up with the LINC idea to handle an
application backlog. When the finished, they took the idea to Burroughs (as
it was then) in NZ who lent them a B1900 overnight while they developed it
further. (I heard they took it to DEC, IBM etc and only Burroughs said that
it was worth a try). Burroughs paid them a dollar for it and they developed
it under license, getting their profits from there.
That's the way I teach it, anyhow. Simpson's still in the business, not
sure about Hoskins.
JB
"Jeff W Morris" <p...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
news:a4np3d$is$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
Bryan Souster
news:iIMb8.956$W8....@news.indigo.ie...
What JB said is essentially true but there is a bit in the detail.
I have heard the story about the 'Arabian Desert' used to deride the history
of LINC - amongst those within Burroughs during the late 80's when there
were still some incredulous that a leading edge product not made in the USA
could be adopted and sold as it was. AFAIK LINC was conceived as an idea in
Saudi Arabia but not developed until Hoskins and Simpson returned to NZ in
1978. Burroughs official involvement commenced in 1980 but I think this was
NZ only - full international Burroughs involvement commenced in 1982 (also
AFAIK). LINC 10 was preceded by LINC 92 and LINC 84 but I am unsure of dates
on these.
Peter Hoskins withdrew from the partnership in 1990. The Unisys LINC
Development Centre was a subsidiary of Aoraki Corporation Ltd - as was
Cardinal Network. AIUI Aoraki renamed itself in recent weeks as Jade
Corporation. Sir Gil Simpson is chairman and CEO. I had a recent look at
their Website (www.jade.co.nz) and also found a bio of Sir Gil there - his
reaction to being described as 'the Bill Gates on New Zealand' makes amusing
reading as does their attempt to leverage their LINC history.
Cheers, Bryan.
bok
> their Website (www.jade.co.nz) and also found a bio of Sir Gil there - his
> reaction to being described as 'the Bill Gates on New Zealand' makes
amusing
> reading as does their attempt to leverage their LINC history.
Bryan,
Is this the 'attempt to leverage their LINC history' you found amusing:
http://www.discoverjade.com/news/prcov2002_linc2loot.htm
Who's laughing ?
Bryan Souster
news:ypJc8.3306$PS6.3...@news02.tsnz.net...
The amusing reading is in the bio at
http://www.discoverjade.com/news/directors_simpson.htm . Gil Simpson has a
very credible list of achievements which could be promoted without naming
names. To include such a crass quote is so odd.
The leverage of their LINC history is found at
http://www.discoverjade.com/news/bground.htm and at several other
discoverjade urls (including the one you quote). I find it mildly amusing
that they plug their LINC association given that Jade has nothing in common
LINC (does it?) and that in developing LINC Gil Simpson's companies
developed no Windows-based runtime product. AIUI Gil Simpson never sold a
copy of LINC. The fact that there are as many sites spread around the world
is due only in very small part to Gil (as the innovator with a dream) and in
large part to Unisys/Burroughs (who recognised the potential, funded
development and sold the product).
This does not diminish Aoraki or Jade. They are being innovative in their
marketing as a look around their site reveals. IMHO the Bill Gates
comparison and references to LINC dim an otherwise credible self-promotion
effort.
I also understand that the commitment of Skipton is less than as Aoraki
claim.
Cheers, Bryan.
Bill McDonald
following:
Within the LDA/EAE environment is a file titled jade.ini. Gil's product (an
alternative development environment to EAE/LDA) is named Jade. It is not a
coincidence. There is a financial agreement between Jade and Unisys ongoing
today. I'll not pretend to be privy to that information.
Aoraki purposly refocused their vision towards the development of tools
rather than application product but, in fact isn't a windows based
development product a windows based runtime product?
There are a number of companines utilizing the Jade product to develop Jade
based applications. I think it would be best if they blew their own horns
though.
I did visit New Zealand last spring for the purpose of visiting the JADE
plant as well as a JADE development group. I came away from that visit very
impressed in what they were doing.
Oh, and one last point. Gil was knighted by England for his contribution to
the commonwealth. Whilst Bill G on the other hand has been and will be in
court for for a long time due to monopolistic practices. Not quite a
knightly personna!
Bill
bok
Just a few thoughts:
> The leverage of their LINC history is found at
> http://www.discoverjade.com/news/bground.htm and at several other
> discoverjade urls (including the one you quote). I find it mildly amusing
> that they plug their LINC association given that Jade has nothing in
common
> LINC (does it?)
The above referenced article states a common mission:
"The company's long-held mission is to make computers easier to program, a
commitment fulfilled first by LINC and now by JADE. "
and goes on to reference the companies experience in building 'mission
critical' enterprise wide apps
"JADE is the company's second product and born of this real world expertise.
JADE combines the best of robust mainframe technology concepts with the
flexibility and low cost advantages of commodity hardware and the Internet."
Apart from this common mission and experience factor I didn't find that
particular article implied any further commonality between LINC and JADE.
> and that in developing LINC Gil Simpson's companies developed no
Windows-based runtime product.
I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to making here. In my view,
JADE is platform agnostic, it just happens that the first version of JADE
was built to run on a wintel platform. Since it's initial release, the core
of the JADE computational environment has been ported to other *nix
platforms, even though the UI layer remain windoze based.
As far as other windoze products go, Aoraki produced the first versions of
LDA for Unisys and also built and marketed a few other windoze products for
example CPA.
> I also understand that the commitment of Skipton is less than as Aoraki
claim.
How so?
cheers
bok
Bryan Souster
"Bill McDonald" <wmcd...@potomacsys.com> wrote in message
news:a5ea8i$g0$1...@grendel.conectiv.net...
> Bryan, you've got some of it right, but.... you might want to consider the
> following:
> Within the LDA/EAE environment is a file titled jade.ini. Gil's product
(an
> alternative development environment to EAE/LDA) is named Jade. It is not
a
> coincidence. There is a financial agreement between Jade and Unisys
ongoing
> today. I'll not pretend to be privy to that information.
>
Jade. This becomes apparent when a multi-user repository is used - the
repository utilities are (or were) clearly branded with Jade.
> Aoraki purposly refocused their vision towards the development of tools
> rather than application product but, in fact isn't a windows based
> development product a windows based runtime product?
>
No. Runtime systems (with hundreds or thousands of users etc) place
volume-based workloads on their platform that are far in excess of
Development platforms (with typically less than 100 users).
[snip fair comment]
>
> I did visit New Zealand last spring for the purpose of visiting the JADE
> plant as well as a JADE development group. I came away from that visit
very
> impressed in what they were doing.
>
Impressed with the show put on or the texchnical merit of the product? Or
both? Just curious.
> Oh, and one last point. Gil was knighted by England for his contribution
to
> the commonwealth.
My experience is that the Queen's honours (including knighthoods) in which
New Zealanders are the recipients are bestowed by the Queen of New Zealand
(who also seems to have English Queenly responsibilities 8-)) at the
instigation of the New Zealand government. There is no involvement of the
UK government and the instigation comes from New Zealand. As sir Gil has
made no known contribution to the British Commonwealth I would assume that
the knighthood would be in recognition of his contribution to the New
Zealand IT industry and/or business development.
> Whilst Bill G on the other hand has been and will be in
> court for for a long time due to monopolistic practices. Not quite a
> knightly personna!
Yep, but if he moved to NZ and lobbied for a knighthood ..... the business
of politics might .... na it wouldm't happen 8-).
Bryan.
Bryan Souster
> Bryan,
>
> Just a few thoughts:
>
> > The leverage of their LINC history is found at
> > http://www.discoverjade.com/news/bground.htm and at several other
> > discoverjade urls (including the one you quote). I find it mildly
amusing
> > that they plug their LINC association given that Jade has nothing in
> common
> > LINC (does it?)
>
> The above referenced article states a common mission:
>
> "The company's long-held mission is to make computers easier to program, a
> commitment fulfilled first by LINC and now by JADE. "
>
> and goes on to reference the companies experience in building 'mission
> critical' enterprise wide apps
>
> "JADE is the company's second product and born of this real world
expertise.
> JADE combines the best of robust mainframe technology concepts with the
> flexibility and low cost advantages of commodity hardware and the
Internet."
>
> Apart from this common mission and experience factor I didn't find that
> particular article implied any further commonality between LINC and JADE.
>
There were several other urls as well - and the cumulative effect is that
they are trying to leverage their old (mainframe) experience into a world so
different that I believe the leverage value is worth far less emphasis.
Gill Simpsons companies developed LINC in a mainframe environment funded
entirely by a multinational (Unisys) and based on proprietary Unisys and
unix operating systems. With Jade the primary platform is Wintel and there
is no participatory multinational - a vastly different consideration when it
comes to both sales and support considerations.
> > and that in developing LINC Gil Simpson's companies developed no
> Windows-based runtime product.
>
> I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to making here. In my view,
> JADE is platform agnostic, it just happens that the first version of JADE
> was built to run on a wintel platform. Since it's initial release, the
core
> of the JADE computational environment has been ported to other *nix
> platforms, even though the UI layer remain windoze based.
>
My point is that historically the Gil Simpson companies have had a core set
of development skills stretching back to 1978 or so. Those skills have only
been extended to Wintel in the last 7 or 8 years and in unix for a few years
more. An impression that Jade has been developed since 1978 is given in one
of the URLs and this is at best a stretch of the truth.
> As far as other windoze products go, Aoraki produced the first versions of
> LDA for Unisys and also built and marketed a few other windoze products
for
> example CPA.
>
> > I also understand that the commitment of Skipton is less than as Aoraki
> claim.
I regret this comment now - I cannot say more because even though I am
contributing here as a private individual I should not comment on an
organisation that is both a customer of Unisys and Jade.
Cheers, Bryan.
Sid Hale
up with the progress of the product.
I had considered getting involved with JADE quite a few years ago, as it
appeared to be the first development environment for the Windows server
platform that would bring the same levels of developer productivity to that
platform that we had been enjoying for years with LINC. Unfortunately,
Aoraki was not prepared to launch in the U.S. at that time, so it wasn't
timely for me to invest a lot of resource in cross-training, etc.
Anyway, this thread re-sparked my interest, so I went out to look at a few
of the hyperlinks that Bryan has pointed out. And, yes, the material in
those pages is presented to take every advantage of the organization's
history with LINC. Let's face it, Gil Simpson, and his companies made quite
a name for themselves and gained quite a respectable reputation in New
Zealand because of the relative success of the LINC product.
I have yet to see a well-designed promotional web site that didn't utilize
every opportunity to point out prior success stories. It's called
MARKETING. And I would, quite frankly, have been very surprised to find
that JADE Software was not making full use of the reputation it has gained
with LINC in its current promotional material. Whether one thinks there is
any similarity in the LINC story and the JADE story is really immaterial.
What is important is that the same organization is bringing JADE to market
that originally developed LINC. And that very fact lends credibility to the
story JADE Software has to tell. Now, if you were creating promotional
materials, brochures, news releases, etc., wouldn't any of you want to
capitalize on the prior successes of the company in similar endeavors?
Bryan's comments regarding the Skipton Building Society, "I also understand
that the commitment of Skipton is less than as Aoraki claim.", prompted me
to see if Skipton had anything to say on the subject. I went to their web
site and within 3-4 clicks, found their own news release on the JADE
decision at http://www.skipton.co.uk/society_news/press_releases/jade.asp
WOW! What a statement! The whole press release is worth reading, but if
you are not so inclined, let me at least quote the lead paragraph of Skipton
Building Society's press release.
"Skipton Building Society has announced a major strategic decision to base
all of its future computer systems on software technology from a New Zealand
company called Jade Software Corporation."
Sure wish I could see LINC customers putting out press releases about making
that level of commitment to Unisys. It's no secret that my own organization
has been joined at the hip with Unisys since our founding in 1995, and that
my entire career since 1971 has revolved around Unisys. My own success is
very much tied to the success of Unisys. So is it any wonder that I am
somewhat (very?) jealous that JADE Software is receiving that sort of
confidence from its clients?
Anyway, given the strength of Skipton's statement in their press release - I
would say that the commitment of Skipton is NOT less than JADE Software
(Aoraki) claim. I understand from other sources that Unisys is not out of
the deal, and that Skipton is/has purchased 3 ES7000 systems on which to run
all this JADE software (this is rumor-mill stuff, but I think fairly
accurate). However jealous I may be of JADE Software's success at Skipton,
it is obvious from additional statements in the press release that this was
a strategic decision made after some 3 years of development in JADE. Given
that, I would say that JADE Software has earned the right to boast on this
accomplishment, and that this success is everything that JADE Software has
claimed.
Sid Hale
Chesapeake Software Services, Ltd.
Progressive Solutions in...
Enterprise Application Environment Technologies
www.chspk.com
"Bryan Souster" <inv...@nogood.invalid> wrote in message
news:wzSe8.8810$R16.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Bryan Souster
news:a64ajq$ka9$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
> I have yet to see a well-designed promotional web site that didn't utilize
> every opportunity to point out prior success stories. It's called
> MARKETING. And I would, quite frankly, have been very surprised to find
> that JADE Software was not making full use of the reputation it has gained
> with LINC in its current promotional material. Whether one thinks there
is
> any similarity in the LINC story and the JADE story is really immaterial.
> What is important is that the same organization is bringing JADE to market
> that originally developed LINC. And that very fact lends credibility to
the
> story JADE Software has to tell. Now, if you were creating promotional
> materials, brochures, news releases, etc., wouldn't any of you want to
> capitalize on the prior successes of the company in similar endeavors?
>
Yesy, Sid - you are right when commenting about MARKETING - however there
are two major considerations that might suggest a less flamboyant approach:
- There have been times when significantly unstable releases were shipped by
ULDC to Unisys. LINC 11 and 14, on all platforms respectively, come to mind.
Unfortunately Unisys also componded this ny shipping both to customers.
- The relationship between Jade (and predecessor companies) and Unisys (and
Burroughs before it) was severed by Unisys.
Senior people at current LINC sites will be aware of the first and quite
possibly both of the above and in looking at this literature might be
inclined to reach for the 40 ft bargepole.
[snip]
My original information about Skipton came from other sources and I regret
commenting publicly about it.
I agree that such a ringing endorsement is very unusual. ANY supplier would
give their eye-teeth for the likes of this. Even Unisys with its current
relationship with Microsoft does not glow about Microsoft like this. Do
they?
Cheers, Bryan.
Greig Blanchett
<inv...@nogood.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>
>- The relationship between Jade (and predecessor companies) and Unisys (and
>Burroughs before it) was severed by Unisys.
Which means what? The same Unisys that has made tactical blunder after
marketing blunder after focus blunder year after year after year
goofed again? Quelle surprise!
>
>Senior people at current LINC sites will be aware of the first and quite
>possibly both of the above and in looking at this literature might be
>inclined to reach for the 40 ft bargepole.
Is this what you wish or is it sustainable fact? I must say, I'm quite
surprised to hear this - most LINC people I work with have at least an
inkling of what Jade is all about and seem quite interested. Coupled
with constant rumours that Unisys might pull the plug on LINC, LINC
support being shocking now that it's predominantly at ACUS, and the
way LINC is now being marketed (or non-marketed), re-skilling to Jade
seems like the quickest way to get up to speed in a growth technology,
especially as LDA contains great conceptual chunks of it already; the
learning curve has got to be gentler for adept LINCsters.
The platforms LINC will run on are decreasing - HP-UX support is about
to terminate. I wouldn't put money on OpenUNIX with anything after
Oracle 817 being supported at all. This is supposed to inspire
confidence that committing to an enterprise LINC solution will mean
years of support from Unisys? The emphasis appears to be to get it
running smoothly on Windows, as if every desktop is a potential
market. Well folks, you want a big LINC generated application to run
smoothly and provide years of trouble free service, you don't stick it
on a Windows box - you run it on something about a million times more
reliable. Like an A Series. Or a Solaris box. The decision to go after
the Windows market from a company which can claim the A Series seems
remarkably muddle headed.
In view of all this, I'd say a senior LINC person having a negative
knee jerk reaction to Jade based on past decsions of Unisys and
slightly hyper marketing bumpf is probably being a bit remiss in their
responsibilities to their employer.
I think Sid summed it up well. Jade is being actively marketed (unlike
LINC). It is being endorsed by a high profile customer (unlike LINC).
To write it off would be rash. I'd advise watching this space ...
[...]
Bryan Souster
news:18C22B7AE331EC81.18521385...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:53:28 -0000, "Bryan Souster"
> <inv...@nogood.invalid> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> >- The relationship between Jade (and predecessor companies) and Unisys
(and
> >Burroughs before it) was severed by Unisys.
>
> Which means what? The same Unisys that has made tactical blunder after
> marketing blunder after focus blunder year after year after year
> goofed again? Quelle surprise!
Yes, Unisys is not perfect but this is emotive language. All companies make
mistakes that can reasonably be described as blunders. Unisys is no
exception. The relationship was severed by Unisys because Aoraki had been
found to be indulging in activities that were incompatible with their
relationship with Unisys.
>
> >
> >Senior people at current LINC sites will be aware of the first and quite
> >possibly both of the above and in looking at this literature might be
> >inclined to reach for the 40 ft bargepole.
>
> Is this what you wish or is it sustainable fact? I must say, I'm quite
> surprised to hear this - most LINC people I work with have at least an
> inkling of what Jade is all about and seem quite interested.
I was talking about senior decisionmakers at LINC sites, you are talking
about developers.
> Coupled with constant rumours that Unisys might pull the plug on LINC,
I have heard no ruomours of this whatsoever in the 18 months since I have
returned to Unisys. In fact, Unisys can demonstrate consistent funding of
LINC R&D to the point that the 3.x releases contain major new feature
content and delivered on long-indicated product directions.
> LINC
> support being shocking now that it's predominantly at ACUS,
LINC support is at least now entirely internal to Unisys with the exception
(IIRC) of the Developer (LDAIII) repository. This compares very favourably
to using an external contract developer. I should know, having been directly
involved in this scene in NZ and the USA (to some extent) from 1985 to 1997.
>and the
> way LINC is now being marketed (or non-marketed),
Agreed. But Unisys is no longer a software or hardware company and it has no
credible third-party channels. In fact if it were not for tenaciously-loyal
companies like Chessapeake and IEG etc. there would be no third-party
channels for LINC at all (IMHO).
> re-skilling to Jade
> seems like the quickest way to get up to speed in a growth technology,
> especially as LDA contains great conceptual chunks of it already; the
> learning curve has got to be gentler for adept LINCsters.
>
As I understand it your LINC skills will in no way leverage you into Jade
because there is no commonality - however this is what I have heard, not
what I know first hand. If I wanted to reskill into growth technologies Jade
would not be high on my list. Most LINCsters I know that are changing
direction are drifting to MS-based technologies.
> The platforms LINC will run on are decreasing - HP-UX support is about
> to terminate. I wouldn't put money on OpenUNIX with anything after
> Oracle 817 being supported at all. This is supposed to inspire
> confidence that committing to an enterprise LINC solution will mean
> years of support from Unisys?
Why does the pullout from those areas with the smallest LINC presence
precipitate a confidence crisis? Are Oracle DBAs running off to greaner
fields because Unixware is being abondoned and MS show signes of seriously
getting into database software?
>The emphasis appears to be to get it
> running smoothly on Windows, as if every desktop is a potential
> market.
No, the emphasis (AFAIK) is to get windows runtime up to a performance par
with MCP/OS1100/Unix.
> Well folks, you want a big LINC generated application to run
> smoothly and provide years of trouble free service, you don't stick it
> on a Windows box - you run it on something about a million times more
> reliable. Like an A Series.
Absolutely. Nail-head shines from direct hit.
>Or a Solaris box.
Doh! Is Sun not setting? I would not have picked this as comparitive to 'MCP
Servers'.
>The decision to go after
> the Windows market from a company which can claim the A Series seems
> remarkably muddle headed.
>
Well agreed but I have to acknowledge the presence in the dimunitive Unisys
hardware arsenal of Windows big-iron hardware called the ES7000.
> In view of all this, I'd say a senior LINC person having a negative
> knee jerk reaction to Jade based on past decsions of Unisys and
> slightly hyper marketing bumpf is probably being a bit remiss in their
> responsibilities to their employer.
>
> I think Sid summed it up well. Jade is being actively marketed (unlike
> LINC). It is being endorsed by a high profile customer (unlike LINC).
> To write it off would be rash. I'd advise watching this space ...
Well I am sorry if I appear to be 'knee-jerking' - that was not my intent
but it was my intent (as always) to be provocative. This and other Unisys
forums (sp?) needs provokers IMHO and I am just doing my bit...
Yes, Jade is being actively marketed but this is by a company whose life is
dependant on it to a large extent. I would dearly love it if Unisys would
demonstrate similar commitment to the EAE. My original post was not about
derision of the product but a questioning of their use of LINC associations.
I have no way of evaluating Jade from a product or technical aspect.
Cheers, Bryan.
bok
> exception. The relationship was severed by Unisys because Aoraki had been
> found to be indulging in activities that were incompatible with their
> relationship with Unisys.
Aw come on now Bryan, if you're going to pull these stories out of a hat I'm
sure you can do much better than that. Why don't you have another go so we
can have another chuckle tomorrow.
Greig Blanchett
<inv...@nogood.invalid> wrote:
>"Greig Blanchett" <gre...@nzrfu.com> wrote in message
>news:18C22B7AE331EC81.18521385...@lp.airnews.net...
[...]
>> >Senior people at current LINC sites will be aware of the first and quite
>> >possibly both of the above and in looking at this literature might be
>> >inclined to reach for the 40 ft bargepole.
>>
>> Is this what you wish or is it sustainable fact? I must say, I'm quite
>> surprised to hear this - most LINC people I work with have at least an
>> inkling of what Jade is all about and seem quite interested.
>
>I was talking about senior decisionmakers at LINC sites, you are talking
>about developers.
Err ... no I'm not.
>
>> Coupled with constant rumours that Unisys might pull the plug on LINC,
>
>I have heard no ruomours of this whatsoever in the 18 months since I have
>returned to Unisys. In fact, Unisys can demonstrate consistent funding of
>LINC R&D to the point that the 3.x releases contain major new feature
>content and delivered on long-indicated product directions.
Well you wouldn't, would you? Out here away from the cloistered
confines of S&T etc. the user world is constantly awash in rumours.
The imminent demise of LINC is a perennial favourite. The HP-UX guys
certainly think so.
>
>> LINC
>> support being shocking now that it's predominantly at ACUS,
>
>LINC support is at least now entirely internal to Unisys with the exception
>(IIRC) of the Developer (LDAIII) repository. This compares very favourably
>to using an external contract developer. I should know, having been directly
>involved in this scene in NZ and the USA (to some extent) from 1985 to 1997.
Yabut. What you're saying in no way contradicts what I'm saying. In
fact it's almost tangential. LINC support is still shocking, and seems
to have been since it moved to Australia.
[...]
>
>As I understand it your LINC skills will in no way leverage you into Jade
>because there is no commonality - however this is what I have heard, not
>what I know first hand. If I wanted to reskill into growth technologies Jade
>would not be high on my list. Most LINCsters I know that are changing
>direction are drifting to MS-based technologies.
Well that's who Unisys have allied themselves to, so of course you
will see people drifting towards MS. Out here where the user is the
chooser, the MS reputation for enterprise level reliability in
ANYTHING is as it has always been - barely existent.
>
>> The platforms LINC will run on are decreasing - HP-UX support is about
>> to terminate. I wouldn't put money on OpenUNIX with anything after
>> Oracle 817 being supported at all. This is supposed to inspire
>> confidence that committing to an enterprise LINC solution will mean
>> years of support from Unisys?
>
>Why does the pullout from those areas with the smallest LINC presence
>precipitate a confidence crisis? Are Oracle DBAs running off to greaner
>fields because Unixware is being abondoned and MS show signes of seriously
>getting into database software?
Straw man. Oracle DBAs are probably licking their lips because Oracle
9 and higher will qualify against the Linux Kernel Personality of Open
UNIX 8. This opens up a whole new world for them. Anywhere is green
fields to good Oracle DBAs. LINC meanwhile would have to then either
port completely to Linux (not a bad move, actually) or figure out how
to run the LINC system in Unix and talk to the database in Linux.
[...]
>
>> Well folks, you want a big LINC generated application to run
>> smoothly and provide years of trouble free service, you don't stick it
>> on a Windows box - you run it on something about a million times more
>> reliable. Like an A Series.
>
>Absolutely. Nail-head shines from direct hit.
>
>>Or a Solaris box.
>
>Doh! Is Sun not setting? I would not have picked this as comparitive to 'MCP
>Servers'.
Nothing wrong with properly set up Sun servers, or Sequent, or HP-UX.
It's all still Unix, which compared to a proprietary OS like MCP is
still wildly unpredictable, but compared to Windows ... hehehe ...
>
>>The decision to go after
>> the Windows market from a company which can claim the A Series seems
>> remarkably muddle headed.
>>
>Well agreed but I have to acknowledge the presence in the dimunitive Unisys
>hardware arsenal of Windows big-iron hardware called the ES7000.
Don't get me started. A kludge. And we've just ordered a third. Sigh.
[...]
>>
>> I think Sid summed it up well. Jade is being actively marketed (unlike
>> LINC). It is being endorsed by a high profile customer (unlike LINC).
>> To write it off would be rash. I'd advise watching this space ...
>
>Well I am sorry if I appear to be 'knee-jerking' - that was not my intent
>but it was my intent (as always) to be provocative. This and other Unisys
>forums (sp?) needs provokers IMHO and I am just doing my bit...
And a job well done, too. I see it as being provocative as in thought
provoking, rather than provocative as in reaction seeking. And that's
a good thing.
>
>Yes, Jade is being actively marketed but this is by a company whose life is
>dependant on it to a large extent. I would dearly love it if Unisys would
>demonstrate similar commitment to the EAE. My original post was not about
>derision of the product but a questioning of their use of LINC associations.
This is a bit flimsy. Any company with a product to sell should be
actively marketing it. Unisys is more or less unique in my experience
in that it has some exceptional products and totally and utterly fails
to market them at all. And Aoraki/Jade have certainly earned the right
to capitalise on their LINC associations - after all, they wrote the
thing! Microsoft didn't even write DOS but they sure capitalised on
their associations with it, didn't they?
>I have no way of evaluating Jade from a product or technical aspect.
>
>Cheers, Bryan.
>
Skipton seem to have done their due diligence.
Bryan Souster
an anonymous poster you do have an advantage over me on this...
Bryan.
Bryan Souster
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:08:06 -0000, "Bryan Souster"
> <inv...@nogood.invalid> wrote:
>
> >"Greig Blanchett" <gre...@nzrfu.com> wrote in message
> >news:18C22B7AE331EC81.18521385...@lp.airnews.net...
> [...]
>
> >> >Senior people at current LINC sites will be aware of the first and
quite
> >> >possibly both of the above and in looking at this literature might be
> >> >inclined to reach for the 40 ft bargepole.
> >>
> >> Is this what you wish or is it sustainable fact? I must say, I'm quite
> >> surprised to hear this - most LINC people I work with have at least an
> >> inkling of what Jade is all about and seem quite interested.
> >
> >I was talking about senior decisionmakers at LINC sites, you are talking
> >about developers.
>
> Err ... no I'm not.
OK. Most people I know of (me inclusive) have no detailed knowledge about
Jade but those aware of the history of LINC (a small subset) are moderately
curious. However they are not serious.
>
> >
> >> Coupled with constant rumours that Unisys might pull the plug on LINC,
> >
> >I have heard no ruomours of this whatsoever in the 18 months since I have
> >returned to Unisys. In fact, Unisys can demonstrate consistent funding of
> >LINC R&D to the point that the 3.x releases contain major new feature
> >content and delivered on long-indicated product directions.
>
> Well you wouldn't, would you? Out here away from the cloistered
> confines of S&T etc. the user world is constantly awash in rumours.
> The imminent demise of LINC is a perennial favourite. The HP-UX guys
> certainly think so.
[snip]
Greig,
I have spent just under 3 years away from Unisys, 1997 - 2000. I currently
on occasion teach MCP-based and EAE-based courses and therefore make contact
with both MCP and EAE newbies from sites - many of which use multiple server
OSs. I have
also, on occasion, spent a lot of time at sites in support situations. Yes I
am with Unisys (S&T) but this is not where the opinions above are coming
from. In fact I have been known to oppose current directions of Unisys in
general and S&T in particular - so I certainly don't swallow the party line.
Leopold Kuipers
Are you running a Linc written application on Windows?
I am running several Linc applications on Windows for almost 3 years.
I d’like to comment on your idea about Linc, Windows and A
series.
Greig Blanchett <gre...@nzrfu.com> wrote in message news:<18C22B7AE3Hi 31EC81.18521385A4D75...@lp.airnews.net>...
> The emphasis appears to be to get it running smoothly on Windows,
True!
> as if every desktop is a potential market.
That would be nice.
> Well folks, you want a big LINC generated application to run
> smoothly and provide years of trouble free service, you don't stick it
> on a Windows box - you run it on something about a million times more
> reliable. Like an A Series.
Suppose that your idea about reliability on A Series is correct. In
our case that means that I have to reboot the A series every 500000
years from now. Perhaps a bit overdone. It is the application that
counts. Windows is the platform that supports a widest range of
applications. Linc written applications included.
About reliability. My Linc end users tell me they have a smoother,
more trouble free service and higher availability on Windows than they
had in the A series days. I guess that the brand of the operating
system is not the only thing that counts for reliability.
Leopold
Martin Jagers
> - There have been times when significantly unstable releases were shipped by
> ULDC to Unisys. LINC 11 and 14, on all platforms respectively, come to mind.
> Unfortunately Unisys also componded this ny shipping both to customers.
> Senior people at current LINC sites will be aware of the first and quite
> possibly both of the above and in looking at this literature might be
> inclined to reach for the 40 ft bargepole.
Bryan,
I can't believe you honestly think that it was Gil's group that
foisted LINC 14 into the world at the time it was. And the stability
issue wasn't so much LINC as the underlying COMS platform.
I was working for Unisys at the time in the Qual Group that qualified
LINC releases on behalf of Unisys corporate. The release was flawed
because it relied on new features of COMS (Input Queue and Output
Queue protection). We had personnel from Mission Veijo out here in NZ
several times trying to get COMS to function correctly before LINC 14
was due for shipment. The Unisys LINC Operations group (of which I was
a part) stated categorically to the Unisys Product Management at the
time that we could not ship the product as it currently stood given
the SYSTEM/COMS platform that was a pre-requisite.
This was overridden and LINC 14 shipped.
Within 2 weeks of first customer shipment, NZ and Australia Unisys
subsidiaries issued a 'no-ship' notice which was quickly followed by
the rest of the world.
It took another several months, several COMS releases and placing LINC
personnel at Mission Viejo for testing purposes before COMS became
stable enough for a re-issue of LINC 14.
But by then, LINC 14 was forever tainted until about 14.3
At the time, Unisys was responsible for the feature content of LINC,
for the acceptance of LINC and for the shipment of LINC. The
instability you talk about was caused primarily by Unisys products
developed completely by Unisys.
Cheers
Martin
Bryan Souster
news:d41a7175.02031...@posting.google.com...
Hi there Martin - its been a few years between drinks.
As regards stability my comments were about LINC 11 and 14 - not just 14 -
and about all platforms. While what you say is quite true about LINC 14 for
MCP in the initial releases, I was involved in the issues at a large US
Customer which ultimately led to the making of the use of OUTPQ optional in
14.5 as it is today. During this whole episode there were certainly facets
of 'them and us' but both organisations exhibited them. This organisation
had migrated from 13 to 14.3 with major performance issues. When I got
involved this had been isolated to the OUTPQ file of their one main system
to a Zitel (i.e. solid-state) disk and the io load to this file (the only
file on this unit) was found to be at the DLP throughput limit (2.5 mb/sec
IIRC). The COMS folks worked hard to reduce OUTPQ cost and this bought us
time. I was able to demolish the customers more extravagant performance
issues but the fact remained that response times were bad and OUTPQ io hard
to defend.
While the ultimate solution was to make use of OUTPQ optional the initial
ULDC reaction to a request to 'is there a way' was negative and my
recollection was that this was fairly common at the time. My only option was
to persist and we were all rewarded with the optional use of OUTPQ that we
have today, brought in IIRC with 14.5. The customer was happy to reintroduce
linclogging to enable screen refresh and the removal of linclog files is
hugely less expensive than OUTPQ garbage collect. The only sacrifice (IIRC)
is ISR recovery.
As for feature content, what you say was true but in theory only. ULDC had a
very strong hand in what went into the product. Unisys began to exert their
authority in this respect only with the ports away from MCP and with the
serious financial constraints of the late 80s.
My point remains that Jade's references to its LINC history might not serve
it all that well in many respects. I would be mildly interested in what, if
anything, Jade development has in common with LINC/EAE.
I also have a pet hate about corporate history been re-written to suit
today's spindoctors. Unisys history goes back no further than November 1986
(IIRC) and Burroughs and Sperry are still in the history books. Equally,
Jade did not start in 1978 as I saw somewhere on the Jade website a few
weeks ago.
Cheers, Bryan.
Alan Pope
being made on this board. While some are valid, many are ill-informed
and in some cases even ill-advised.
What it is that will not permit the majority of contributors to give
any/some credit when credit is due? Why must most writers look to
find (or invent!) fault? Are we so afraid of someone's potential
success that we feel the need to take them down a peg or two?
The thread has comments that imply or state that: JADE is
壮on-of-LINC': that JADE was funded by UNISYS: that the developers of
JADE 蘇ad been found to be indulging in activities that were
incompatible with their relationship with Unisys': that JADE should
not have been built on the experience of LINC. Oh, give me a break!
What is it with you guys and this thread that allows the invention of
these 爽rban myths'?
LINC was, and is, a great product. Conceived out of necessity and
successful. A huge source of revenue for Burroughs/UNISYS in the past
and today. A product that so far has had 20 years in a highly
competitive industry (full of charlatans and knockers!). In this
industry for a small non-USA company to have had a long-term (20 years
plus) successful relationship with a major USA based IT player is a
story in itself!
The 訴nventors' of LINC have run a successful business for over 20
years and have constantly moved forward, pushed boundaries and kept a
consistent vision. That they re-invested THEIR OWN MONEY in the risky
proposition of developing a new product, on a new platform, is a brave
action. JADE was born from this vision.
As I understand it, while JADE encompasses many of the original (and
in some cases innovative) concepts found in LINC (arguably, of course!
total integration, simplified development, reliability, integration,
state-of-the-art, reduced long-term costs) it cannot be said to be
壮on-of-LINC'. Of course the builders have used their considerable
LINC experience to the benefit of JADE. Who wouldn't and why not?
All life is built on experience!
Rather than criticise the JADE folk for their foresight in 壮preading
their risk' and taking the next step maybe one could point the finger
at Unisys for having none! The fundamental difference? The JADE folk
risked all on revolution while Unisys stuck with evolution. Sorry,
which company is growing?
It has been pointed out that while the two companies 組rew apart', the
basis of the current LDA tool set is JADE, albeit under a different
name. It cannot be without some irony that Unisys write the cheques
and the JADE folk bank them!
A close look at the JADE web site (www.discoverjade.com) and at the
site of some of the existing JADE users would lead one to say that
there must be something in the product. Organisations like Skipton do
not take these types of decisions lightly. On the contrary one must
assume that they have spent many thousands of pounds looking at
different technologies.
Let us at least be fair, honest and supportive of those trying to make
a different, no matter how small. LINC has given gainful employment
to many many persons over a 20 year period and I am sure will continue
to do so for a fair number of years to come. JADE is obviously
employing many persons also and are we not all the better for
innovators and folk who are not constrained by the 礎ox'? Remember
that LINC started the same way!
Constructive criticism, suggestions and comparisons are to be
encouraged, no matter the product. Snide comments, innuendo, sniping
and self-centred ego protection are not.
Sid Hale
Would that I could have said it so well.
Sid Hale
Chesapeake Software
(firm supporters of LINC, and other innovative technology)
http://chspk.com
"Alan Pope" <alan...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:917ce87f.02032...@posting.google.com...
> I have 'watched' with growing disquiet and frustration at the comments
> being made on this board. While some are valid, many are ill-informed
> and in some cases even ill-advised.
>
> What it is that will not permit the majority of contributors to give
> any/some credit when credit is due? Why must most writers look to
> find (or invent!) fault? Are we so afraid of someone's potential
> success that we feel the need to take them down a peg or two?
>
> The thread has comments that imply or state that: JADE is
> 'son-of-LINC': that JADE was funded by UNISYS: that the developers of
> JADE 'had been found to be indulging in activities that were
> incompatible with their relationship with Unisys': that JADE should
> not have been built on the experience of LINC. Oh, give me a break!
>
> What is it with you guys and this thread that allows the invention of
> these 'urban myths'?
>
> LINC was, and is, a great product. Conceived out of necessity and
> successful. A huge source of revenue for Burroughs/UNISYS in the past
> and today. A product that so far has had 20 years in a highly
> competitive industry (full of charlatans and knockers!). In this
> industry for a small non-USA company to have had a long-term (20 years
> plus) successful relationship with a major USA based IT player is a
> story in itself!
>
> The 'inventors' of LINC have run a successful business for over 20
> years and have constantly moved forward, pushed boundaries and kept a
> consistent vision. That they re-invested THEIR OWN MONEY in the risky
> proposition of developing a new product, on a new platform, is a brave
> action. JADE was born from this vision.
>
> As I understand it, while JADE encompasses many of the original (and
> in some cases innovative) concepts found in LINC (arguably, of course!
> total integration, simplified development, reliability, integration,
> state-of-the-art, reduced long-term costs) it cannot be said to be
> 'son-of-LINC'. Of course the builders have used their considerable
> LINC experience to the benefit of JADE. Who wouldn't and why not?
> All life is built on experience!
>
> Rather than criticise the JADE folk for their foresight in 'spreading
> their risk' and taking the next step maybe one could point the finger
> at Unisys for having none! The fundamental difference? The JADE folk
> risked all on revolution while Unisys stuck with evolution. Sorry,
> which company is growing?
>
> It has been pointed out that while the two companies 'grew apart', the
> basis of the current LDA tool set is JADE, albeit under a different
> name. It cannot be without some irony that Unisys write the cheques
> and the JADE folk bank them!
>
> A close look at the JADE web site (www.discoverjade.com) and at the
> site of some of the existing JADE users would lead one to say that
> there must be something in the product. Organisations like Skipton do
> not take these types of decisions lightly. On the contrary one must
> assume that they have spent many thousands of pounds looking at
> different technologies.
>
> Let us at least be fair, honest and supportive of those trying to make
> a different, no matter how small. LINC has given gainful employment
> to many many persons over a 20 year period and I am sure will continue
> to do so for a fair number of years to come. JADE is obviously
> employing many persons also and are we not all the better for
> innovators and folk who are not constrained by the 'box'? Remember