Our last trivia quiz explored the legacy of mainframe pioneers, and this week we’re going to continue looking into the lineage of skills in mainframe professional practice, examining how early design and operational decisions shaped the way mainframe expertise is taught, shared, and sustained over time.
However, unlike our last quiz, which looked at individual pioneers, this one is more focused on practices rather than personalities, and how those practices continue to influence modern mainframe work. The emphasis is on professional discipline, institutional knowledge, and the systems of learning that allowed the platform to scale and endure.
Take the quiz and test your knowledge!
Not bad at 78!
Some of the questions are a bit misleading. For example, #5 indicates that the intent of backward compatibility was to enable workforce stability. The answer is correct but the question is wrong.
The intent of backward compatibility was to protect customers’ investments in their code assets. Before the System/360, every time new hardware came out, regardless of manufacturer, customers had to rewrite their programs in the new system architecture, which often had completely new instruction sets. This even happened with different processor types in the same family. Instruction formats constantly changed and instructions that ran on one processor type either didn’t work properly or completely disappeared in the next. Companies had to constantly re-investment in programs they depended on.
The System/360 changed all that by making sure a program written for one model would run on the next model up (downward compatibility wasn’t guaranteed). And when the System/370 came out, those same programs would run on it without needing to be changed (or need very minor change).
This was the single most important innovation in commercial and scientific computing systems. It’s why dev/ops teams don’t have to engage in heroics every time a new processor or operating system upgrade happens.
i answered ‘allow rapid hw turnover’ … so with that thinking i was correct