[drzaiusapelord]

>verifying that the "ancient" Linux system they setup to replace their mainframe 25 years "ago" is safe.

The problem with mainframes is that they can't be trivially upgraded or migrated to 64-bit like modern OS's on x86 hardware can be. Vendor lock-in, retirement of OS, bare to the metal coding, etc caused this. If these mainframes were running a modern OS, it would have been trivial to upgrade them to a 64-bit version and make whatever small changes are needed to date storing in the old 32-bit apps. You won't need a wizened COBOL guy for this. A first year CS student would be able to look at C or C++ code and figure this out. Modern languages are far more verbose and OO programming makes this stuff far easier to work with.

Comparing mainframes to unix systems really doesn't make sense. Its two entirely different designs. Not to mention, the idea of running a 32-bit OS today is odd, let alone 20+ years from now, especially with everything being cloudified. You'd be hard pressed to even find a 32-bit linux system in 20+ years, let alone be asked to work on one. That's like being asked to setup 1000 Windows 98 workstations today.

[sedachv]

Pretty much everything in your post is wrong. IBM mainframes are heavily virtualized and have very good support for moving to larger address spaces. VM and MVS moved from 24-bit to 31-bit to 64-bit address spaces. You can run the old 24-bit applications and upgrade them as needed. Even assembly programs - the old assemblers and instructions are supported on newer hardware. System i (System/38-AS/400) was built around a 128-bit virtual address space from the start. There is much more support for fixing old software on mainframes than there is for proprietary 1980s-era PC and Unix applications.

I have no idea why you think running 32-bit today is "odd." 32-bit desktops and small servers are still perfectly usable today. 32-bit microcontrollers are going to be around for a very long time (just look at how prevalent the 8051 remains), and a lot of them are going to be running Linux. It also makes a lot of sense to run 32-bit x86 guests on AMD64 hypervisors - your pointers are half the size so you can get a lot more use out of 4GiB of memory.

[ajdlinux]

Also note that IBM mainframes can run 64-bit Linux just fine. Indeed, IBM's been marketing its LinuxONE mainframe line as a z series machine that doesn't run z/OS at all.

(disclaimer: IBMer, but not a mainframe person)

[drzaiusapelord]

We're talking Mainframe system designs and code from the 70s and 80s. No they aren't running 64-bit linux. I think you guys need to re-read my post. The legacy systems on Y2K had none of these features.

[__jal]

It isn't 1000 seats, but I know of a Win98/NT4 shop. It is an isolated network supporting mostly phone sales and pick-and-pack, runs some ancient copy of MAS90 and some home-grown software.

These installations exist, and (outside of tech startupland) isn't even that strange, although he is probably pushing things. The owner of that business is proud of how long he's made his IT investment last; his main concern is that dirt-cheap second-hand replacements that can run 98 are apparently getting harder to find.

[Spooky23]

Be careful about your definition of absurd. Somewhere, right now, some poor bastard is building an NT 3.51 workstation for some stupid reason. I'll bet you $0.05 that some future poor bastard will be building NT4 or 2000 devices in 2038. :)

[ygra]

Well, at least NT has no problem with 2038 ;-)

[jackvalentine]

I built an NT3.5 VM in 2012 to run some ancient book binding publishing junk that relied on an ancient version of access... might still be in production, no idea.

[pravda]

I just set up a Windows 98 system last week!

Installation of win98 is so quick, so easy, compared to XP.

But websites don't render so well in the win98 version of IE. I don't think it knows about CSS.