> Interesting phrase there: "... the mainframe systems architecture developed > by Amdahl ..." Apparently attributable to Register, not PSI, and true in a sense, but otherwise misleading.
Probably derived from PSI's footer boilerplate: "The new PSI systems are based on proven systems architecture spun-off from Amdahl Corporation ..." It may in retrospect prove to have been a major mistake on IBM's part to hinder Fundamental, since the fact that Fundamental has not been able to get commercial licenses since 1 November makes PSI's first claim true - otherwise it would not be: "- Tying its mainframe operating systems to its mainframe computers by conditioning sales of its operating systems on the purchase or continued use of only those IBM-compatible mainframe computers that are manufactured by IBM;" "Supplied" would have been a better word, since the z800 was manufactured by Hitachi. The Register's "hypothetical" Windows example is not hypothetical at all - Microsoft did in fact withold preloading contracts from PC manufacturers who loaded _any_ of their product with OS2. I find PSI flat dishonest on occasions, I must say. Take this: "Reilly additionally stated that, 'IBM's predatory business practices have affected our company, but PSI's open mainframe computers have been well received by customers who value us as the only alternative supplier in the marketplace.'" Huh? What "customers"? ESP sites at LL Bean and Lufthansa that haven't been paid for do not equate to "customers". One prerequisite of calling yourself a "supplier" is that you have actually "supplied" something, which they blatantly haven't yet done. And they keep on calling themselves "the only alternative supplier" when all of us know about Flex-ES. If they had said something like: "PSI has developed and demonstrated a viable alternative solution of interest to mainframe users ..." I'd be a lot happier. But I keep on reading stuff painting a most misleading picture of the true status of their company and product. I sympathize with IBM too about the branding and reputation of z/OS, especially as the IT world becomes more security conscious. How is IBM to know that there are no security exposures in the implementation unless they certify each implementation and any patches to that implementation - an expensive business? This is starting to look like a long-drawn out business. There's also a chance this won't be the only lawsuit. Fundamental Software has patents that are specific to emulation of IBM's architecture. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.co.uk +44 7833 654 800 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
