The Greying of the Mainframe Elite 701
bobcote writes "The Boston Globe is running a story about the maintainers of the mainframes getting older and facing retirement. One of the problems is that many computer science programs don't include mainframes in their curricula anymore. From the article: "Amid concerns that America doesn't produce enough technically trained young people, mainframe computer users and developers are especially concerned. Most computer science students concentrate on small-computer technology, such as Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating systems, or the popular alternatives Unix and Linux. Few have been trained on zOS, the operating system that runs IBM Corp.'s massive mainframes."
IBM should be training (Score:5, Insightful)
At this sentence, my first thought was that if IBM wants to make sure there are people to support/run/develop on their mainframes, then why don't they start providing more training? If the colleges won't do it, then they need to take matters into their own hands. And then I came across this sentence:
Companies are taking matters into their own hands. Whitaker learned her trade at age 18, through an intensive six-month training course sponsored by Total System Services, her future employer.
Which is great, but I still think that it should be IBM doing the training. If they want to make sure that companies keep buying their mainframes, then they should make sure that there are trained people out there that can go work for a company that is buying a mainframe. It seems completely in their best interest to provide the training at a reasonable cost to get those few thousand youngsters into the ranks.
Were there ever zOS university courses? (Score:3, Insightful)
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
My issues with comp-sci programs aside, why cant these younger people simply take the normal approach of learning on the job? Dont worry about it, just start training people.
misunderstanding of computer science (Score:5, Insightful)
Every other employer I've known with what might be called "specialized" or "exotic" hardware or equipment (and yes, mainframes deserve to be in that category very soon if they aren't already) provided training on that equipment. A sharp student with a good understanding of fundamentals will be able to learn the specifics quickly enough.
Whinge... (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't to say there aren't a lot about.
Why should they (Score:4, Insightful)
CS degrees should be about Computer Science theory and understanding. The rest is just syntax and training.
The skills they DO teach are the ones that they are most likely going to use in the "real world" at that time. Aside from giving a student a well-rounded education, colleges are also responsible for giving the student skills that will apply once they enter the workforce.
"trained" vs "educated" (Score:5, Insightful)
Absent is importance placed on "capable of learning", "able to take on new responsibilities", or even just general intelligence.
It's amazingly short sighted. Technology changes, and within almost any company, there's regular change. Hiring overall good people who can adapt and learn new systems ought to be the mindset, but usually it isn't.
Oh to be an intern again (Score:3, Insightful)
They are the blacksmiths of our era (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps they are... (Score:2, Insightful)
No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
Most computer science students concentrate on small-computer technology, such as Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating systems, or the popular alternatives Unix and Linux. Few have been trained on zOS, the operating system that runs IBM Corp.'s massive mainframes.
Comp Sci students are not (or should not be) training to be system administrators. That is a vocational program. That would be like complaining that electrical engineers are no longer taught how to manufacture and assemble vacuum tubes. Serisouly, why complain that students are not being taught long obsolete technology?
Not only that, but the point of a college education (and sadly this is rarely the case) to imbue the students with the skills to think critically, reason effectively and adapt/synthesize information to deal with new challenges. If they walk into a job that requires mainframe skills, they should be able to pick them up as they go. That is, if they have received a quality college education. Other than that, they should be looking to hire DeVry or ITT graduates that have been trained in the vocation of mainframe operations/maintenance/programming/whatever.
They shouldn't teach it in CS. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of the current mainframe gurus were taught mainframes as part of a curricula? I would expect not very many. In fact, most of the mainframe guru's I have met didn't even have an educational background in computers- computer science as a seperate course of study hadn't barely begun to get off the ground at that point, so they were mostly engineers, scientists and mathematicians who happened to get to work with mainfraimes as part of thier job or studies, and discovered they liked it.
Schools should not be teaching mainframes, nor should they be teaching MS Windows. They should be teaching CS fundamentals, and providing general-purpose software development experiance. I wasn't an expert in embedded software or Windows programming when I graduated college, having most of my programming experience on unix boxes. But that is what I am doing now, because a company hired me on as an intern and gave me the opportunity to gain experience in the field.
The problem is not with the schools but with the employers who were too short sighted to apprentice anyone under thier gurus.
Re:IBM should be training (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't scare me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No need to register... (Score:5, Insightful)
My profs just got done telling me about this (Score:5, Insightful)
My profs came out and told us that people like State Farm and Caterpillar had sat down with our CS people and asked them to provide some sort of mainframe sequence. But any graduate of the CS program should be able to pick up mainframe programming through training. It's just another language, after all. These companies should have seen the writing on the wall and hired graduates 5 years ago and had their current mainframe programmers start training them. Then they'd have workers with 5 years of real-world experience in mainframes. That's infinitely more valuable than a " mainframe concentration" in a CS degree.
These corporations dropped the ball, and now they're looking to universities to pick it up for them. They don't want to have to spend money training anybody. That's all this boils down to.
Re:No need to register... (Score:5, Insightful)
I blame ITT Tech.
Re:IBM should be training (Score:3, Insightful)
Or what about a decent set of manuals? Way back in my VAX days, I got assigned to work on an IBM midrange system. The VAX had an entire library of manuals (remember the orange books?) while this piece of crap, overpriced IBM system came with something like two manuals. I was the only in-house guy assigned to the project, and spent tons of time trying to find answers to simple questions. When I finally asked our IBM rep how one learned their systems, his answer to me was that I needed to sit next to another experienced programmer for several years to learn the trade. So much for documentation!
That experience totally turned me off to working on high-end systems, and I suspect that the lack of good information is part of the reason why colleges don't teach anything IBM. That and the fact that PCs are so much cheaper to outfit. The only thing that IBM has going for it on the mainframe side is disk throughput, but other than that the mainframe doesn't offer anything that a cluster of PCs can't. Maybe someday some of these corporations will wake up and smell the coffee and start engineering solutions that don't revolve around a single computer system. And then maybe we'd also be able to live in a world where, when you call the airline for flight information, you won't be told that "the computers are down right now".
Re:Frightening shortage? (Score:3, Insightful)
Academia has a problem with Cobol in general.
Mix the two and the obvious solution, although potientially quite costly, is to move away from Cobol.
Furthermore, business shouldn't have any say over what is taught in a CS degree. Because a traditional degree isn't about getting a job. It's about gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I recommend these business start talking to trade schools.
Re:No need to register... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're really cutting their own throats because of it, but that's what happens when "buisness" people (who don't really know anything about buisness either) run the show.
Where can one get training? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I find the concept of mainframe development rather attractive, as I do any architecture substantially different from what I'm used to. I'd really like to get to know how to use and program these machines.
Problem is, I've no idea how to go about this. It wasn't offered as a module at university, and I don't exactly have one lying around I can play with.
I recall reading about how IBM donated a mainframe to an english university (reading? Can't remember) for tuition purposes, but I don't exactly want to take a second degree to go about this.
One thing that strikes me is that backward compatibility on mainframes is legendary (with many programs written for a system 360 still running without modification. This would suggest the use of old machines for training. Would there be any objection to companies donating their retired mainframes to academic institutions for this purpose?
Re:misunderstanding of computer science (Score:2, Insightful)
I usually try to give them analogies they can understand... e.g.: you wouldn't hire an architect to design your new home, and then ask him why the plumbing is clogged.
Re:No need to register... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even so we were expected to be Unix savvy, and even though it was never taught in any class, if you graduated with a CS degree, you probably WERE Unix savvy, and even better, you'd learned how to pick up a technical skillset in response to related work pressures, something I have used over and over in my life.
Schools like ITT are really meant to turn out MCSEs and the like. But a degree from a decent 4 year program should still prepare you to move out into the tech world.
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for learning on the job - you leave uni, your straight into Job Catch 22.
You need experience to get the job
You need training to get experience
You need money to get training
You need a job to get money
You need a job to get experience
Where do you start? Especially when you concider that companies don't like investing in training, because it means they might have to pay you more (and if they don't you'll move companies).
I know the laws of economics will kick in, and eventually the skills gap will mean that companies are forced to take risks again... but thats not now. If IBM wants to sell mainframes, they need to give away training.
Re:No need to register... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is all about the money (Score:3, Insightful)
Computing platform and associated support all make up part of the total cost of ownership for systems.
If corporations consider legacy mainframes to be a strategic part of their solutions, they will pay for the wages and training.
Therefore... If one reviews where the money is going, mainframes are not viewed by the corporate world as strategic.
Re:No need to register... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Is there anywhere else in the world that comment would be a troll?)
-aiabx
Re:No need to register... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you don't know jack about the hiring process these days. I've got 15 years experience as a mainframe systems programmer/administrator, I've specialized in performance management, and availability measurement and management of Windows, Linux and Unix systems and applications, I've got a RHCE certification, but because I don't know some specific version of HP/UX or Solaris, no one will look at my resume twice. All a recruiter wants is specific skillz in specific areas. Demonstrated ability to learn on the job is not worth anything anymore. Sure, I can take an entry-level sysadmin job. In fact, that's what I'm going to have to do if I want full-time work.
No one seems to value the guy who can figure it all out. All they're interested in seems to be specific.
Make zOS free as in beer. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:zOS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No kidding (Score:1, Insightful)
Comp Sci students are not (or should not be) training to be system administrators. That is a vocational program. That would be like complaining that electrical engineers are no longer taught how to manufacture and assemble vacuum tubes. Serisouly, why complain that students are not being taught long obsolete technology?
While I agree that there is (or ought to be) a difference between a comp-sci degree and traing for a particular system, your post illustrates the real problem.
Lumping mainframes with "long obsolete technology" shows an apalling lack of understanding of how computing gets done in the real world. Of course recent CS grads avoid going into positions where they would get traind to deal with Mainframes, because the schools turn out people who have been playing with toy systems so long that they figure that they can run Wall Street or air traffic control with a beowolf cluster of ipods.
Schools should not be traingin admins, but they should be turning out people who are aware of how computing gets done, and who understand that there are different tools for different jobs, and have at least a high level appreciation for which kind of tool should be used for which kind of job.
Grade: F
Re:No need to register... (Score:1, Insightful)
Your employer should train you, not your customer. If you are your own employer, you train yourself, and include the cost of training in the fees you charge your customers.
Re:WORD! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're not getting it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You're not getting it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to Google.
Re:No need to register... (Score:2, Insightful)
Enter "networking". When you know someone or can get your resume placed directly to a manager, you bypass HR completely. You actually get to talk to someone who can understand that the knowledge jump from one Unix to another is trivial and that you'd be up to speed as fast as anyone else.
Cold calls and the monster.com way of finding jobs just aren't very effective.
Re:Here to Stay (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you mean that these systems are very stripped down, haven't been modified for decades, and are consquently well-debugged.
This, of course, is exactly why no one wants to be involved with them. The tools are ancient and the technology is obsolete. It's like having a coal-fired steam engine. Yeah, it still works, but who wants to shovel coal by hand when you could have a natural gas line doing the work for you.
Until the banking and financial industries demand rock-solid implementations of modern technology, they're going to look at the old stuff as far safer. It just comes with a price, there's no one who wants to shovel coal any more.
Red baiting (Score:3, Insightful)
At one point, IBM mainframes and their work-alikes were almost synonymous with enterprise computing. Today, that is far indeed from being the case. They're still interesting and useful, but part of a specialized niche market.
There are plenty of good reasons to learn mainframe technology, but given that the architecture, operating system, heck... everything! are completely proprietary and the knowledge you accumulate is generally not practical any place else (unlike the Unix world, for instance) there is a strong disincentive to "put your eggs all in one basket" and learn mainframe technology. What if IBM discontinues it in five or ten years. Worse, what if it's gone in 15 or 20 when you're too old and tired to learn new tricks?
I have a deep respect for IBM and its business practices (no really!) But not for the decisions they made surrounding their mainframes. Granted, I can't take potshots because most of this was done thirty or more years ago with no clue as to what the world would like today. Still, building to open standards has always been a sound truth. The more you rely on proprietary tech to lock your customers in -- however you justify it -- the more you ensure that sooner or later you will pay the heavy cost for doing so.
IBM built its own cage here (or, dug its own grave if you feel like being dramatic.)
Why these articles get published... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No need to register... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is coming from a diesel engine manufacturer that has less than half the employees of the telecomm, just a small percentage of the accounts we had to process, none of the fines we could incur for outages, and not even close to the amount of revenue we had to process or the breadth of applications we had to support. I don't think it's a stretch to call my former employer major league IT and their's triple-A. Yet, because my resume doesn't have X number of years with the actual title they are looking for, they don't want me on their triple-A team.
But I'm not bitter...
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
My how times have changed. Back when I was in University, we learned computer science, not specific operating systems. Of course we used specifica operating systems. In our case it was 4BSD and VMS. But we didn't have classes in them. We had classes in programming languages, data structures, compiler design, algorithms, etc. That was just the basics. That's what I took because I wasn't a CS major. The majors took additional specialty classes in information theory, networks, artificial intelligence, etc.
Wordstar, 123 and DOS were on the market back then, but if you wanted to take classes in them you had to go to night school at the junior college. How much of that "education" would be useful today? Why do you think classes in Windows or Linux today will be different and remain be useful twenty years from now? If you really need those classes for your job, then take a night class at a junior college. But don't waste your formal education on them.
Re:You're not getting it. (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, no one is going to change a 30 year old system to suit the needs of a 22 yro vb/web programmer (I had the strange honor of showing the little old lady what the net was..she had simply never heard of it). And I also figured that a lot of it was history...these were folks who had been doing this, in some cases, since the 50s. They had fixed their ideas of computers as machines that forbid you to fold, spindle or mutilate, and when you left work you went home and never thought about computers until the next day, not necessarily because you weren't interested or loved what you did, but because you simply didn't have one, and couldn't get one.
Re:No need to register... (Score:5, Insightful)
You also need someone who WANTS to learn zOS, and possibly end up working with it and it alone for the rest of their career.
Choosing to specialize in mainframe technology means your employment options are going to be limited to those companies which have mainframes. Specialize in something more widespread, like Unix administration or web development, and you can work for practically anyone.
All the mainframe experts I know right now are barely past 40, and worried that their jobs will disappear before they hit retirement. I can't say I'd blame a recent university graduate for not following in their footsteps.
Re:No need to register... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I left the mainframe world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful there buddy. Some of us are over 50, and with young kids (I got a late start, how typically geek) are going to be doing this until we're 70.
As you will learn soon enough yourself, over 40 is not the end of the line, as long as you keep learning and keep current. Bah, I had my hands inside the Unix kernel long before Torvalds even graduated from high school....
It is not always the case that older people stick with what they know, it is often the case that corporations shovel money toward people that know what they are doing to keep them around. Commonly referred to as retention programs. As long as you have half a brain, there is no risk in it. By the time the door really does close, you have been earning wages above 'the curve' for ten or fifteen years, and you still have marketable skills. (You did keep learning, right?)
The old guys felt threatend? Weird. All my mentors when I started out of college were 'old' guys, and they were very helpful and very accomodating. But then, part of their performance review was based on their mentoring skills. If I failed, it would have reflected negatively in their pay, so they had a vested interest in my success. All these years later I still respect the time and knowledge they handed over, I learned far more on the job than I did in school. Of course, it was spread over more time, and I did have that nice 'bootstrap' from college.
Since then, I have been in a few mentoring positions myself. Generally they went well, but a couple of times not. One was either a lack of capability or desire, I could not figure out which. The guy had flashes of brilliance but never completed a single project. The other was purely a personality conflict. Young guy, wet behind the ears, got good grades in school, suffered from a 'god complex'. Too bad, because he was smart, but nobody (and I mean nobody) could work with him. It was always 'his way or the highway'. Apparently we were all idiots and the whole company was damn lucky to have picked him up.
Hang in there. Careers over the long haul of thirty or forty years have a way of taking paths that you will never expect. Remember to have fun while you are doing this, but make sure you maximize your pay as well. No use in spending so much of your life on the cheap.
Re:No need to register... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, there's the rub... (Score:3, Insightful)
The documentation and source code are (or were) revenue generating portions of the business.
I can understand charging for access to source code, but the idea that a customer should have pay to learn how to use a product he has been sold is, to me, obscene.
I've often thought that one of the reasons Java took off like wildfire was because Sun gave away not only the runtime environment & the compiler, but also the API:
By glancing at a few "Hello World!" tutorials and then perusing the API, you could [and, to this day, still can] teach yourself Java in about a day.Nowadays everyone does it (compare MSDN [microsoft.com]), but circa 1995, it was a pretty revolutionary idea - back then, everybody else required you to purchase a 750 page 10 lb $100 hardcover treatise just to be able to teach yourself the syntax that would produce "Hello World!".
And the idea that you would sell a product to a customer and then refuse to demonstrate to that customer how to use the product you just sold him strikes me as not only a monstrously awful business model, but, quite frankly, more than a little sadistic.
And my ad would read... (Score:2, Insightful)
My point being if its important to them they will pay. They didn't pay to upgrade or retrofit a new system so they will pay to have someone run it. Behold the glory of capitalism... or is that market economies?
BS in my opinion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No need to register... (Score:3, Insightful)
A lawyer comes out of law school knowing law, but is not an expert in copyright law.
A medical doctor comes out of medical school with medical knowledge, but is not a podiatrist nor a neurosurgeon.
A computer science graduate comes out of school with a knowledge of computer architecture, but is (probably) not a z/OS expert.
Why shouldn't a computer technician come out knowing z/OS? What you're suggesting is a course of study that covers every environment that's at least as popular as z/OS... which would take several decades. That would be utterly absurd, since people don't live to be 200 years old. You might as well suggest that every lawyer learn maritime law, patent law, criminal law and a dozen other specialties before leaving school.
Re:adjust yourself (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of highly-talented people have applied for dozens of jobs over many months without getting any replies; so a little bitterness in a Slashdot post may be justified.
Show me the money! (Score:3, Insightful)
But if there is a choice between a gig doing
There are obviously many older types who aren't quite as mercenary as myself, but hey they're not going to be around for ever.
"America doesn't produce enough technically trained young people", give me a break. Flash some cash man, show me the money.
Re:still not adjusted. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really easy throw up your arms and cry "the system is screwed up!". Life's not fair kiddo - get used to it.
I strongly suggest that if the rules are biased against you, make up your own rules
Like bypassing HR via networking.
Like going freelance to build up a large resume of diverse projects.
Like working on FOSS on your spare time....
I just think that the guy who I was defending had a valid point about the failures of HR. These criticisms seem to be flowing freely on this thread so I will leave it at that....
Old and not so old.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ah. More FUD from the distributed/*nix world. (Score:3, Insightful)
You sir obviously either know nothing about mainframes, or have different definitions of "critical" and "very large" than the rest of us.