Talk:Cullinet

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Question about Interact

message: 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.
ADS/O programs were easier to understand. It provided a "conversational" approach to applications development since it encaspulated the pre-processing, screen-design, and post-processing all in one module. (PreMap, Map (screen), Response.) Contrast this to CICS programs, and even today's Visusal Studio where the "conversations" crosses from one program to another.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaxMax (talk • contribs) 07:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADS/OnLine Software was one of the first online application development tools. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiple Editor Personality Disorder for IDS origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  and a disputed statement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  MEPD III 

message: 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.
Sinobra (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "We often want to generate reports from the corporate data held on the mainframe.  So we send a request to the DP department for a report with the information we want organized in a table, with maybe a graph, and some explanatory text.  If we are lucky, we can get our report in 6 weeks.  Now that we have these IBM PC's in our offices, can't you supply us with a program that would allow us to download a subset of data from the mainframe, into a local database on the PC where we can sort, project, and select, and maybe transfer the data into a spreadsheet, and maybe generate a graph or two, and integrate it into a document with some explanatory text?"
GoldenGate was developed to meet this request.  At the time it was classified as a "decision-support tool" as it was expected that reports generated by this process would be used by management in their decision making processes.
After the launch of the initial product, there seemed to be a lot of confusion as to what the next phase would be, and I think a lot of time and money was wasted.  
I think upper management missed a opportunity here. Cullinet had great mainframe product and a enormously effective (and entrenched) direct sales infrastructure. Mainframe sales were the ultimate goal of the company, and Goldengate was created to enable more mainframe sales.  It was the tail of the dog, so to speak.  
I don't think Cullinet could conceive of the idea of spinning off GoldenGate technology as a separate product to be shrink-wrapped and mass marketed as a low-cost integrated office software solution. Had they created a division with this goal in mind, with it's own sales and marketing team, they might have been able to realize some serious income for some time.  However, given Microsoft's determination to own the office automation software segment. It's doubtful Cullinet could have succeeded where Lotus failed.
End Sinobra (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GoldenGate A Mistake?

message: What does "the company had got hung up on the open architecture and relational issues" mean?Lestrade (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it means there were too many technological changes at the time for a product suite entirely written in S/370 & S/4300 (that is, strictly Mainframe) Assembler Language to catch up with. Going to relational was an immense effort, but trying to cope with newly emerging platforms literally caught Cullinet with their pants down. --AVM (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Slang

message: 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)
replies: text: Too bad you weren't there at the time, to assist Mr. Cullinane make better decisions. --AVM (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Architecture?

message: Initially, ADS/Batch was a reworking of a package purchased from a customer and did not have the elegance of ADS/Online.  The developer in charge of reworking the product left the company shortly after the product was released because she knew that she would forever remain infamously associated with the product. Only later did ADS/Batch get rewritten as an ADS/Online port. TLayman 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADS/Batch 

message: Perhaps it should be noted that prior to forming Cullinane/Cullinet that John Cullinane spent a number of years working for PHI in Arlington Mass before going out on his own after the aquisition of PHI by Wang Labs.
PHI was the premier software development house in the region, clients ranged from Draper Labs, IBM, to commercial accounts such as Marine Midland bank  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jv818 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cullinane left PHI to form his company 

message: This article is littered with unsubstantiated subjective commentary. It should be cleaned up.Carlolofson (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too subjective