|
"(Unix came out over 40 years ago - shall we talk legacy?)"1979 - only 6 years older. I guess everything is "legacy".
First version of Windows came out in 1985, first version of i/OS (S/38) in
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Vern Hamberg
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:10 PM(http://www.iddmagazine.com/issues/2009_42/the-technology-behind-the-scam-19
To: thomas.granahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Comment on the recent article on Madoff's scam
Mr Granahan
I read with interest the article by John Dodge about technology behind
the Madoff scam
It appears, from a quick read, to put much of the blame squarely on thescheme.
AS/400 - the technology in question. I strongly object to this - it is,
in my opinion, completely wrong-headed. I learned long ago that
computers are stupid - they do exactly what you tell them, not what you
want. If things were done on these systems that allowed Madoff to carry
out his Ponzi scheme, it is not the system's fault. It is some
programmer, some auditor, some whatever human being behind it all.
I am a computer professional who works on these so-called legacy systems
- a false categorization, unless you lump Unix systems in along with it.
(Unix came out over 40 years ago - shall we talk legacy?) The IBM
midrange systems have a tremendous feature, backward-compatibility -
anything you wrote 20 years ago can be compiled on current systems
without any change in source code. Talk to us about VB.net - about API
calls in Windows that don't work in the next release.
This strength of the system was exploited by a human - the extreme
segregation of computing resources that let Madoff get away with his
Mr Dodge's report of the printing characteristics - well, it is a very
narrow presentation of the system's capabilities. That seems completely
beside the point. And this is not unique to these systems. At all!! A
distinction without a difference.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this. I ask you to publish a
retraction or clarification - e.g., that the technology behind it was
NOT to blame. Perhaps something about the true strengths of the platform
and how human beings were able to take those strengths and fleece other
people in such a way. THAT would be an interesting study in human nature
- not the veiled suggestion of culpability of any technology as against
that of those who use it.
Regards
Vernon M. Hamberg
Software Architect
RJS Software Systems
www.rjssoftware.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.