re: Why Union Pacific Builds Its Own Tech
Isn't Union Pacific the company that made the big splash in the tech mags a few years ago by telling the world how it was dumping its mainframe and moving exclusively to x86 architecture? And didn't they say they weren't going to worry much about virtualizing those servers? And didn't they say the migration and the complete rewrite of their code environment would cost between $150 million to $200 million?
Further, how much did it cost to develop all of the new code? How much was the re-tooling and how much was the cost to develop new skill sets? How much, over time, is it going to take to maintain that code? As for the 1.5 hours of downtime that they now allow in their service level requirements, how much downtime did they see when they were running their highly-available mainframe environment? How much money is being saved by having to build out, rewire, configure, and support a complete distributed network environment ? How much energy is being saved (I bet energy costs increased significantly...)?
Seems that I have to agree with the previous commenter: rail likes the position that they're in -- dominating small companies (whom I guess are the ones buying their software). But as for being risk adverse, I think Union Pacific took a huge risk dumping the mainframe for x86 architecture. Think of the security risks; the huge cost if the project failed; and the public embarrassment if we all find out that the mainframe is still there. To me, this shows Union Pacific is willing to take risks...
By the way, has Union Pacific finally moved off its mainframe or is it still there?