Talk:Cullinet

This article needs work. There are some minor problems regarding facts about the software mentioned itself. Spaceyankee 17:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All of the documentation (e.g., end-user manuals, customer courseware manuals, and application progammer manuals) were written [by me, Walt V. Bernacki--Senior Documentation Specialist--Walt Bernacki now lives in Cape May, NJ; Assistant Professor of English at Atlantic Cape Community College] using a very primitive form of a word processor called "INTERACT," which was designed and developed by Cullinane Database Software programmers to simply provide a notation tool for the COBOL programmers to use as a means to capture design notes. INTERACT required the use of an IBM-3270 "dumb terminal" linked through dedicated data lines to Cullinet's mainframe located just north of Boston. Ads/Online was the first pliable software package that allowed database programmers to design end-user screens by actually using a visual "map" of each screen image that could be tailored visually to any database end users in a variety of technologies. Clients included Martin Marietta, GE Space, US Department of Defense, Missouri State Census and Payroll Records Department, and NORAD.

Question about Interact

Was not Interact a version of Wylbur?

In 1979, as a new employee, I was told it was a derived from the SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) version of Wylbur.

Cullinane acquired the product (originally called "MENTEXT"), through the acquisition of Mentel Corporation.

Interact was used by Cullinane field personnel using TTY devices, not just corporate folk fortunate enough to have 3270s.

ADBADQC (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADS/OnLine Software was one of the first online application development tools.

All of the documentation (e.g., end-user manuals, customer courseware manuals, and application progammer manuals) for the ADS/OnLine product line were written [by me, Walt V. Bernacki--Senior Documentation Specialist--Walt Bernacki now lives in Cape May, NJ; Assistant Professor of English at Atlantic Cape Community College] using a very primitive form of a word processor called "INTERACT," which was designed and developed by Cullinane Database Software programmers to simply provide a notation tool for the COBOL programmers to use as a means to capture design notes. INTERACT required the use of an IBM-3270 "dumb terminal" linked through dedicated data lines to Cullinet's mainframe located just north of Boston. Ads/Online was the first pliable software package that allowed database programmers to design end-user screens by actually using a visual "map" of each screen image that could be tailored visually to any database end users in a variety of technologies. Clients included Martin Marietta, GE Space, US Department of Defense, Missouri State Census and Payroll Records Department, and NORAD.

Multiple Editor Personality Disorder for IDS origin

Article contains the following internal debate:

[...] taking over development of a Honeywell database management system called IDS that had been modified to operate on IBM and IBM compatible (RCA) mainframes . Actually IDS was originally developed by General Electric, and a Bill Curtis had supposedly gotten the rights to convert the system to run on IBM equipment.

Somebody needs to clear up its origin (with cite) rather than carrying on an argument within the article itself. Also, IDS is ambiguous (I've tagged it as such), and Bill Curtis currently links to a redir to Bill Kurtis, which I'm guessing is wrong... .

"a Bill Curtis" and "supposedly" are also quite unencyclopedic.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and a disputed statement

Article also had:

The solution to the company's revenue problem turned out to be its new Integrated Data Dictionary [NOTE: THIS IS WRONG. IDD WAS PART OF IDMS WAY BACK IN THE 1970S.].

The "THIS IS WRONG" looks to have been added by Special:Contributions/99.233.218.21 on October 4, 2007. I've replaced it with a tag. --NapoliRoma (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

I agree. IDD was at the core of IDMS when I first used it in 1977 and there was no new "dictionary" in development as of 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.39.66 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "I" in IDMS stands for "Integrated", which refers to the IDD. I know IDD was part of the product when I first installed it in 1975. ADBADQC (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MEPD III

Another debate, this time self-contained within one sentence:

In the process, Cullinet acquired some very questionable VAX companies but one had an outstanding relational DBMS but by then it was too late, the company's $50 million nest egg had been burned.

This one might be more a formatting problem than self-contradictory (although it's still quite loaded with POV).

While I'm at it, I might as well point out that "Goldengate was a mistake" is heavily into The POV Zone.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenGate A Mistake?

GoldenGate was conceived at the time when Lotus 123 was dominant and Lotus Symphony just released. It looked like users wanted integration and Symphony was the first of many attempts to learn what integratiuon actually meant. Cullinet believed that its users wanted mainframe data to extend down to the desktop, and launched GoldenGate along with Information Center Managament System (ICMS). GoldenGate was launched before ICMS was ready and looked like a Symphony wanna-be. It was rather useless without the mainframe integration. When finally launched, ICMS proved to be far too slow to be of any use, and besides, the users nevery really figured out what to use the thing for.

Slang

What does "the company had got hung up on the open architecture and relational issues" mean?Lestrade (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Open Architecture?

That was never an issue.

Cullinet got hung up on relational. IBM began agressively marketing DB2 to its mainframe users. The positioning was that relational database systems were the future and anything else was obsolete. They even suggested that companies cuold replace their programmers with DBS tolols such as QBE. It was pure hype.

Cullinet, in a vain attempt to preserve sales, tied to position IDMS as a relational-like database sytem without defining what that meant. E.F. Codd was right to berate Cullinet for this. Im my opnion, Cullinet should have positioned IDMS as the database for large enterprise applications because it easily outperformed DB2 by an order of magnitude. I think that the fact that there remain many large-scale IDMS databases are still in use in 2008 proves this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.39.66 (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]