Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/04/2007 at 12:27 PM, McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Actually, installing software on a computer is copying. Rarely is software run from the installation medium. And, there is a verbatim copy of the software, at least temporarily, in the RAM even in that case. I don't know of any current machine which can actually run a program from a storage media (sic) What do you mean by a storage media? Form where I sit CD's, DVD's, disk packs and tapes are all storage media from which people have loaded programs. I can agree only with the second half of your comment. (the IBM 650 did as main memory was really a drum, not core). We normally cleared the drum before loading a new program; not something that we would do if using it as a storage medium[1]. Further, when someone shipped us a new version of a program they didn't ship us a drum, just cards or tape. [1] Besides, it was only big enough to hold the data from 250 cards. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/04/2007 at 06:15 PM, Van Dalsen, Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Surely the copy of windows that you are running is fully licensed? If it exists. Why expect IBM to give it away for free. Have you stopped beating your wife? Why should he defend a claim that he never made? He quoted a suggestion of $100 a pop; perhaps that's not the price you want, but it's certainly not free. In my Opinion, if you look at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy That interpretation would startle the founding fathers. Copyright means exactly what the name suggests. Yet, does Microsoft allow this What m$ allows has nothing to do with what copyright law allows. In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/05/2007 at 12:16 PM, Van Dalsen, Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: In my opinion, what makes IBM code safe in terms Auditing risk, is the fact that only IBM labs work on it. You need a really P'd-off IBMer to plant a Trojan in the code, and a few P'd-off testers to miss it during testing. So I would not be in favor of open source for the mainframe. Nobody will be running production on a reference implementation. Further, making the source available does not require accepting source changes from the general public. A fork of the reference implementation would not be the reference implementation. What I would be in favor of is a platform where developers outside of IBM can present new software designs/ideas to be included after proper securitization. It would need to pass a legal screening and I'm not sure what that would cost. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/05/2007 at 10:20 AM, Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What do you think of the idea to make it a signature driven petition rather than a letter from a single person? IMHO it's a good idea if you're talking about real signatures on real paper, but avoid anything that looks like astroturfing. And don't hold your breathe. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/05/2007 at 03:59 PM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The only operating systems that are legal to run on Hercules are Linux, and MVS 3.8 (I think). Shirley all of these are legal: BOS/360 BPS/360 CALL/360 CP/67 DOS/VSE DOS/360 MTS OS/VS1 OS/VS2 R1.7 (SVS) TOS/360 TSS/360 VMF/370 -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/05/2007 at 09:01 AM, R.S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: BTW2: A lot of people, including IBMers run Hercules with z/OS. Illegally. We can doubt it, criticize it, but this is fact. Your belief in the claim does not constitute evidence and does not make it a fact. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/03/2007 at 04:04 PM, Dave Kopischke [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: With all due respect, I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. That's true to the extent that IBM obeys its contracts and the law, but that blade cuts both ways; others don't have an obligation to behave the way that IBM desires or expects. In particular, if T3 believes that IBM's actions are illegal, it doesn't have an obligation to refrain from filing suit. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Dec 9, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 12/05/2007 at 03:59 PM, Mark Post [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The only operating systems that are legal to run on Hercules are Linux, and MVS 3.8 (I think). Shirley all of these are legal: BOS/360 BPS/360 CALL/360 CP/67 DOS/VSE DOS/360 MTS OS/VS1 OS/VS2 R1.7 (SVS) TOS/360 TSS/360 VMF/370 Don't call the legal system Shirley:) Ed -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shmuel Metz , Seymour J.) writes: The only operating systems that are legal to run on Hercules are Linux, and MVS 3.8 (I think). Shirley all of these are legal: BOS/360 BPS/360 CALL/360 CP/67 DOS/VSE DOS/360 MTS OS/VS1 OS/VS2 R1.7 (SVS) TOS/360 TSS/360 VMF/370 this recent post references http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#18 Folklore references to CP67 at Lincoln Labs some (virtual machine) cp67 historical references from Melinda's VM paper at http://www.princeton.edu/~melinda/ mentioning that very early, two new commercial companies were formed to offer (virtual machine) cp67-based commercial timesharing services http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#timeshare drawing people heavily from Science Center, http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech Lincoln Labs, and Union Carbide. It also makes references to MTS folklore having been initially built on top of Lincoln Labs LLMPS. There was an OS/360 operators console application called ONLINE/OS that provided CMS-like interactive functionality. It was most frequently used with PCP ... but could also be used on MFT and MVT. CP67 had a function that could save a virtual memory image of a running virtual machine. This was used with CMS to get rapid startup. However, a technique was developed that could also checkpoint a virtual memory image of OS/360 ... at point when I/O had been quiesed ... allowing OS/360 quick start in a virtual machine (just restore the saved virtual memory image). This could be used in conjunction with restoring a saved image of OS/360 where ONLINE/OS had already been up and running. old posts mentioning online/os http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#34 IBM OS Timeline? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#45 Valid reference on lunar mission data being unreadable? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004.html#48 AMD/Linux vs Intel/Microsoft http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004d.html#33 someone looking to donate IBM magazines and stuff http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007b.html#50 Is anyone still running part of Melinda's paper has appendix mentioning ONLINE/OS was never released outside the company (although I had a copy of it at the university in the 60s, also much of the original work had been done by a person on assignment from Union Carbide) ref: E.C. Hendricks, C.I. Johnson, R.D. Seawright, and D.B. Tuttle, Introduction to ONLINE/OS and ONLINE/OS User’s Guide, IBM Cambridge Scientific Center Reports 320-2036, 320-2037, March, 1969 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 06:45:04 -0600, Ed Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Jon Brock wrote: No, I'm going for the popcorn franchise for all those people watching this play out. Jon Jon: Hey, start up you Belgium waffle stand think of all the people you will get from IBM-Main:) Ed Heck, he can get the same effect from buying a Krispy Kreme franchise or hosting a Star Trek convention... -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Dec 6, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Jon Brock wrote: No, I'm going for the popcorn franchise for all those people watching this play out. Jon Jon: Hey, start up you Belgium waffle stand think of all the people you will get from IBM-Main:) Ed -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On 6 Dec 2007 14:29:27 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: Certainly OCO marched on, with IBM and the world the poorer for it. I used to believe that until the memory of the number of usermods caused great delays in upgrades and the implementation of new function. I remember one ex-IBMer becoming an Operations Manager just about a year befor XA was announced. He managed to get full sign-off authority for usermods (new and existing). He drove the SYSPROGs and their manager nuts. He almost never gave approval. Exits, or nothing, he said. Due to non-disclosure, he couldn't exactly tell them why. When my shop was converting from JES3 to JES2, there was a function we wanted (priority change on NJE printout or job IIRC) that could only be done inline. I presented it to management and told them I could do it if they really wanted it but it was a better idea to only do those things that could be done in exits. The function was dropped. When XA came out, and was easily implemented at the shop, he was thanked by all involved. OCO may be akin to swatting a fly with a buick; it did solve that problem. Plus it did move IBM closer to protecting its IP. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! Clark Morris -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:49:37 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: I got to find the time to sit down and read all these things and cross reference them for myself. For convenience, here again are the links to the pages from which you can download the relevant pdf documents: http://www.platform-solutions.com/news-litigation.php http://www.t3t.com/news.aspx Regards, Roger Bowler -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
A few things stated in the attached posting may really cause heartburn and a form of legal colitis (or some such) if it can be demonstrated that Hercules and/or PSI's technologies are (or may reasonably be) based on Linux or z/Linux code provided by IBM (again, I've not had the time to peruse the motions/petitions to see if this little gem is referred to): From the thread: Open z architecture and Linux questions -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Post Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Open z architecture and Linux questions On Fri, Dec 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kirk Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -snip- AFAIK: 1) Linux for system z is still able to run on raw LPARs, without z/VM Correct. On machines that support it, it will also run in basic mode. (IBM can't test that any longer, but they used to. So, it could have happened that something crept in that would prevent it.) 2) IBM contributes kernel patches and tool chain code to support the z instruction set, under the GPL Also correct. So: Q1) Are any closed/proprietary instructions and hardware interfaces used? There have been a number of these, with most of them subsequently opened via source code drivers: QDIO, HiperSockets, 3590 tapes, etc. I don't know if Diagnose commands fall into this category or not, but a number of them are used in the kernel, not necessarily with any documentation. If so, does contribution of code under the GPL that links to closed/proprietary interfaces imply anything? That depends on who you ask. In some cases, the fact that a bit of code exists elsewhere, and is also used as a Linux kernel module in binary-only form is used to grant an exception to a vendor. The thought being, that if that code was created _only_ to run as a Linux kernel module, then it is some sort of derivative work, and therefore should be GPL code. As you might guess, this is a very complex area that gives rise to any number of arguments/debates/flame wars. Q2) Might we expect that eventually Linux on system z will require z/VM, so that platform enablement (for the kernel and device drivers) can be moved into closed DIAG instructions so that IBM can further protect its IP? Would that be accepted to the Linux kernel folks? It might be completely acceptable to Linus and company, but would not be to the general customer base, unless and until z/VM comes with every IBM mainframe purchase. Understand, I am a big advocate of running Linux on z/VM, but I am also in favor of customer choice. I don't want my options limited if it can be avoided. SNIP Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Mulder) writes: But actually it did not take decades, as the original release of MVS/XA in 1982 functionally supported 16-way SMP. Of course there were no such processors at the time (nothing greater than 2-way until the 4-way 3084), but it did run for testing purposes using 16 virtual CPUs on a modified version of VM. Of course, as larger processors were actually built, additional was done (and continues to be done) to address performance/scaling issues. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#76 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly well, sort of. one of the things to get rapidly to 16-way smp implementation, as well as addressing performance/scaling issues, was to relax standard 370 cache consistency rules (and, in fact, most SMP vendors going to larger numbers of processors have almost always involved how to deal with cache consistency issues). remember that compareswap ... misc. posts about smp and/or compareswap http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp was invented by charlie (compare-and-swap was chosen because CAS are charlie's initials) at the science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech and i've mentioned before the original difficulty of getting compare-and-swap into 370 architecture. Some of the difficulties is why the example of program failure still appears in the compare-and-swap writeup http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/DZ9ZR003/A.6.1?SHELF=DZ9ZBK03DT=20040504121320 i've frequently claimed that the 801 risc effort http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 was attempt to go to the opposite extreme from what went on in FS http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys and also claimed the lack of cache consistency in 801 risc was adverse reaction to the heavy performance penalty paid in 370 by its strong cache consistency requirement. in fact, it wasn't until somerset (joint ibm, motorola, apple, et all) for power/pc that there was (risc) work on smp and addressing cache consistency. in any case, part of doing 16-way smp (and relaxing 370 cache consistency rules) was much more detailed attention paid to every piece of code (because of the associated hardware changes for relaxed cache consistency). for some more topic drift, in just the 3084 time-frame, both mvs and (standard) vm had effort to go thru all kernel data storage management and make sure things were cache-line sensitised. the issue was the increased probability that more than one cache might be accessing different data items which happened to overlap in the same cache line (resulting in significant cache line thrashing). The claim at the time was that this effort resulted in 5-10 percent increased system thruput (for 4-way). As the number of independent caches that had to be coordinated ... the probability increases that there is going to be some kind of cache interference. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#76 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#76 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#1 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly for slightly more light-hearted, seasonal reference, old email with mvs/xa tso reference from long ago and far away: Date: 08/26/82 15:24:21 re: mvs/xa; i've seen it for myself, a 3081 system completely idle except for one MVS/XA tso user. Response time is longer for that single TSO user on the 3081 than for CMS doing same type of stuff on a loaded 3033. MVS/XA is copy of the one that large internal datacenter is using for their development work. the large internal datacenter has gen'ed the TSO logo screen (in big block letters) BAH HUMBUG The only thing slower than the 3081 service processer (5+ seconds to single step one instruction) on the 3081 is possibly MVS/XA TSO. The observation is that TSO is so slow, that you have lots of time to syntax your next input make sure that there are no mistakes (because if there are ... then things will really be slow). ... snip ... somewhat related to post in this thread http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#40 Why isn't OMVS command integrated with ISPF? -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Hi everyone, There were so many good ideas that I didn't send the letter. (Gosh, I was sorely tempted though...) I think it is a great idea to have many people sign it (which is why I had And... And..) under my signature. And to get Share involved it GREAT. So... onwards, ever onwards. I look forward to seeing what pops up in the next week or so. Cheers, Clement Clarke -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
I lobbied against getting rid of Roscoe, Wylbur was already gone, for the COBOL developers a while back when management wanted to go purely TSO. At that time, with storage resources at somewhat of a minimum, I just could not see getting rid of Roscoe. We kept it but I still had my trials and tribulations playing with 32 MB of storage. We eventually married two 3081's to get a 3084 w/PIF. Anne Lynn Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. re: mvs/xa; i've seen it for myself, a 3081 system completely idle except for one MVS/XA tso user. Response time is longer for that single TSO user on the 3081 than for CMS doing same type of stuff on a loaded 3033. MVS/XA is copy of the one that datacenter is using for their development work. internal datacenter has gen'ed the TSO logo screen (in big block letters) BAH HUMBUG The only thing slower than the 3081 service processer (5+ seconds to single step one instruction) on the 3081 is possibly MVS/XA TSO. The observation is that TSO is so slow, that you have lots of time to syntax your next input make sure that there are no mistakes (because if there are ... then things will really be slow). ... snip ... -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:35:38 -, Phil Payne wrote: IBM has already formally stated its position. Except that they haven't. All information we have about IBM's supposed position on Hercules is entirely based on hearsay. Prove me wrong. If it isn't available online, you can send me a jpeg of the letter that contains the formal statement. I shall be most interested to see what it says. Paragraphs 38ff are crucial - it has been suggested that these diagnostics, and especially Amdahl's architecture validator, were the route by which TIDA/TILA information got into Hercules and thence to both UMX and PSI. I can guess who suggested this, and the suggestion is entirely false. I don't even know what information is in the IBM-Amdahl TIDA/TILA. Whatever is in it, must be pretty ancient history by now. What I *can* tell you is that none of the functionality in Hercules was put there as a result of any external tool. The key point here is that I *know* how Hercules was developed, whereas you are only guessing. Your suggestion that UMX and PSI copied their technology from Hercules also seems highly unlikely. Sounds to me more like somebody else's sour grapes. If you think your assertion has any validity, why don't you make your accusations directly to UMX and PSI. Where I *do* agree with you, on the other hand, is the futility of writing to Sam Palmisano, coupled with the inadvisability of citing Hercules as justification. However, both you and I have been known to be wrong in the past, so who knows we may be proved wrong on this occasion too :-) I also think that the inclusion of my z/Architecture and z/OS belong to us all manifesto is unlikely to be well received, to say the least. Although frankly I doubt he gives a fig what any of us think, even if he does bother to read the letter which I doubt. Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Roger Bowler wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:35:38 -, Phil Payne wrote: Where I *do* agree with you, on the other hand, is the futility of writing to Sam Palmisano, coupled with the inadvisability of citing Hercules as justification. However, both you and I have been known to be wrong in the past, so who knows we may be proved wrong on this occasion too :-) I like to believe in miracles, Roger! Einstein, Bohm et all, believe that we ar all one. That we create our lives, and that we reflect back to each other the lives/thoughts we have. So, create happy creative lives. You created something great. We all can Clem -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Maybe more to the point...we ... userscan help in the development ..supply real life enhancements if given the chance.. suggestions and etc..--like at share--does work...but comes slow...if we had the opportunity to contribute REAL code changes I think a much can come of it and also keep the interest alive.. so on so on.. -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Bowler Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:35:38 -, Phil Payne wrote: SNIP Paragraphs 38ff are crucial - it has been suggested that these diagnostics, and especially Amdahl's architecture validator, were the route by which TIDA/TILA information got into Hercules and thence to both UMX and PSI. I can guess who suggested this, and the suggestion is entirely false. I don't even know what information is in the IBM-Amdahl TIDA/TILA. Whatever is in it, must be pretty ancient history by now. What I *can* tell you is that none of the functionality in Hercules was put there as a result of any external tool. The key point here is that I *know* how Hercules was developed, whereas you are only guessing. SNIP What you have said would be a very interesting thing to be cross-examined in court. If, indeed, Hercules is NOT based on TIDA/TILA (second one I don't remember), but is based on other NON-Confidential information, then PSI et al, are in a very interesting position. By being able to show that the architected system (inclusive of the non-documented instructions) of Hercules exists and that they could look to it for certain information, it would take some of the wind out of IBM's sails. Of course, IBM's attorney pool should be aware of this MAJOR problem (to their case). So they just might go down the road of issuing subpoenae... It could get ugly. Now, for an interesting thing about TIDA (which should also be born out in depositions should IBM go that far): When I was at Amdahl, many of us knew of its existence. However, only a very select few were allowed direct access to it. Then they would tell us what they thought certain things meant, and then the second/third level of engineers worked on that basis. It was done, as I recall, to keep us from implementing anything exactly as IBM had. So, would this mean that some 10+ years after the fact, that someone similarly informed would not be able to sit down with an IBM machine (or LPAR) and build a program to see what IBM did to effect SIE (e.g. a z/800)? And then take that knowledge and put it into an emulator system? Or do the equivalent for the Service Processor interface instructions (which were published to ISVs -- I say this because I saw that doc at Boole Babbage). So for those of you into legal issues with IP, just what boundaries would have been crossed by such testing? And if it can be shown that this is how Hercules (or others) came to their implementations, wouldn't this be quite damaging to IBM's claims? I'm wondering about the obviousness issue (with regards to patents) and if this would wreck some of IBM's patents in this area. Not being an attorney, but being a very interested third party (although probably not in the US Legal sense), I'm most interested in how this will turn out. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:03:27 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: What you have said would be a very interesting thing to be cross-examined in court. If, indeed, Hercules is NOT based on TIDA/TILA (second one I don't remember), but is based on other NON-Confidential information, then PSI et al, are in a very interesting position. By being able to show that the architected system (inclusive of the non-documented instructions) of Hercules exists and that they could look to it for certain information, it would take some of the wind out of IBM's sails. Looks like PSI have already spotted this angle: see para 34 on page 9 of http://www.platform-solutions.com/docs/PSI-Amended-Answer-sept07-FINAL-REDACTED.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/27ppxq Regards, Roger Bowler -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Warner Mach I think it is time to 'get tough' on this issue of laptop mainframes. In the letter to Sam Palmisano we should threaten a mass migration of mainframe professionals over to 'Waffle Dinges.' (Will the Waffle Dinges guy franchise out his business?). Unfortunately, only governments can make that kind of threat viable against an entrenched monopoly. Otherwise, I'm sure IBM Global Services would welcome such a threat carried out. -jc- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warner Mach Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:27 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I think it is time to 'get tough' on this issue of laptop mainframes. In the letter to Sam Palmisano we should threaten a mass migration of mainframe professionals over to 'Waffle Dinges.' (Will the Waffle Dinges guy franchise out his business?). Oh, I wish. But I couldn't sell water in the middle of the desert at a discount! -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Bowler Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:38 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly SNIP Looks like PSI have already spotted this angle: see para 34 on page 9 of http://www.platform-solutions.com/docs/PSI-Amended-Answer-sept07-FINAL-R EDACTED.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/27ppxq SNIP I got to find the time to sit down and read all these things and cross reference them for myself. This looks like a huge battle that is going to have more far-reaching results than M/S, Intel, IBM and others anticipate, if IBM doesn't settle out of court with these guys. One of the things may be a ruling by a court (or finding) having to do with what constitutes reverse engineering, emulation, simulation, etc. And I don't think anyone will be quite happy with the end result. And, I would not be surprised if IBM didn't wind up back under some consent degree again. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
No, I'm going for the popcorn franchise for all those people watching this play out. Jon snip I think it is time to 'get tough' on this issue of laptop mainframes. In the letter to Sam Palmisano we should threaten a mass migration of mainframe professionals over to 'Waffle Dinges.' (Will the Waffle Dinges guy franchise out his business?). /snip -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Will you serve the popcorn with Dinges? On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:06:28 -0500, Jon Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I'm going for the popcorn franchise for all those people watching this play out. Jon snip I think it is time to 'get tough' on this issue of laptop mainframes. In the letter to Sam Palmisano we should threaten a mass migration of mainframe professionals over to 'Waffle Dinges.' (Will the Waffle Dinges guy franchise out his business?). /snip -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Ron Wells wrote: Maybe more to the point...we ... userscan help in the development ..supply real life enhancements if given the chance.. suggestions and etc..--like at share--does work...but comes slow...if we had the opportunity to contribute REAL code changes I think a much can come of it and also keep the interest alive.. and that goes back to our thing about hobbyist licenses for z/OS ... I can't use cycles on my company's mainframe without approval ... so how do I develop code that I can contribute? --Stephen -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:28:56 +0900, Clement Clarke wrote: There were so many good ideas that I didn't send the letter. (Gosh, I was sorely tempted though...) I think it is a great idea to have many people sign it (which is why I had And... And..) under my signature. And to get Share involved it GREAT. So... onwards, ever onwards. I look forward to seeing what pops up in the next week or so. Anyone who thinks that sending letters to IBM on this is going to do anything should read up on the anti-OCO efforts of the early 1980s. SHARE and other user groups were involved in a big way, and many letters were sent to IBM, not just by geeks like us, but by the likes of senior VPs of Fortune 500 companies. At least one question was asked of the CEO at an IBM annual meeting. IBM treated the geeks with suitable contempt, and responded to the more senior people with content-free letters just restating their claims that OCO would by some magic be good for IBM customers. I have no doubt that some IBMers got serious bonuses for keeping it all below the radar. Certainly OCO marched on, with IBM and the world the poorer for it. Tony H. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Certainly OCO marched on, with IBM and the world the poorer for it. I used to believe that until the memory of the number of usermods caused great delays in upgrades and the implementation of new function. I remember one ex-IBMer becoming an Operations Manager just about a year befor XA was announced. He managed to get full sign-off authority for usermods (new and existing). He drove the SYSPROGs and their manager nuts. He almost never gave approval. Exits, or nothing, he said. Due to non-disclosure, he couldn't exactly tell them why. When XA came out, and was easily implemented at the shop, he was thanked by all involved. OCO may be akin to swatting a fly with a buick; it did solve that problem. Plus it did move IBM closer to protecting its IP. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Van Dalsen, Herbie wrote: Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... Surely the copy of windows that you are running is fully licensed? Why expect IBM to give it away for free. Dell gives discounts on desktops to employees of companies that buy enough Dell servers from them, but they do not give it away for free, and you still need to include at least an OEM license for Windows. In my Opinion, if you look at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy - everyone should be allowed to use their office license at home, because no-one is going to use their office copy while they aren't there... Yet, does Microsoft allow this... certainly not. Again, why expect it from IBM. IMHO no one expects to have free z/OS license for desktop, especially for non-home use. People rather expect the license to be *available*. FlexES wasn't hobbyist solution (or it was vry expensive hobby). BTW: Solaris is available for free, for non-commercial users. Everyone, not only employees. Comparison to Dell machines is ...you know. Dell have to pay for production, have to buy the components. BTW: I'm not sure about the following, but I was informed, that AIX is free in term when you have RS/6000 aka pSeries, you are entitled to run AIX. I heard it from guy who bought second hand RS/6000 (for peanuts) and wanted to buy AIX. He couldn't, because it's free. Other people confirmed this opinion, however I have never seen IBM written statement about it. In fact I've never looked for it. BTW2: A lot of people, including IBMers run Hercules with z/OS. Illegally. We can doubt it, criticize it, but this is fact. (no, I don't do it. No need. I have almost unlimited access to real mainframe). -- Radoslaw Skorupka Lodz, Poland -- BRE Bank SA ul. Senatorska 18 00-950 Warszawa www.brebank.pl Sd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy XII Wydzia Gospodarczy Krajowego Rejestru Sdowego, nr rejestru przedsibiorców KRS 025237 NIP: 526-021-50-88 Wedug stanu na dzie 01.01.2007 r. kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA (w caoci opacony) wynosi 118.064.140 z. W zwizku z realizacj warunkowego podwyszenia kapitau zakadowego, na podstawie uchwa XVI WZ z dnia 21.05.2003 r., kapita zakadowy BRE Banku SA moe ulec podwyszeniu do kwoty 118.760.528 z. Akcje w podwyszonym kapitale zakadowym bd w caoci opacone. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Has IBM canceled its commitment to the P390 ? Have they developed a 64bit equivalent yet? I know very little about this, but I almost bought myself one, but I was not a registered developer, so I could not get SW upgrades. I am sure that is training instances / developers register, IBM will still allow them to run the software, there is a 5mip machine on your desk for training purposes. Regards Herbie -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield Sent: 04 Desember 2007 07:21 nm To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Good points. Here are my opinions. First, you cannot really seriously run z/OS and call it a mainframe without comparable hardware. So in essence the use of the software is for training, development and other similar purposes. A copy of Windows on the other hand is the real thing. Second IBM already has a PWD system in place where they allow their z/OS software to be used just for those purposes. There are some issues about emulators that, try as I might, I just cannot understand. And as a PWD member I already can download copies of DB2, Websphere, Tivoli and a ton of other software for Windows, HP, AIX and even Linux. IBM has the right idea there. As professionals we are more likely to use and promote the use of software that we are familiar with. I can just as easily recommend to a potential customer to use BEA WebLogic and Postgres on HP-UX instead of WebSphere and DB2 on AIX. If it sounded like I think that IBM should put z/OS 1.9 on a FTP site for public download like Linux or MySQL then I wasn't clear. Their PWD system is ok, they should just loosen up a bit. Lindy -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Van Dalsen, Herbie Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2007 20:15 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... Surely the copy of windows that you are running is fully licensed? Why expect IBM to give it away for free. Dell gives discounts on desktops to employees of companies that buy enough Dell servers from them, but they do not give it away for free, and you still need to include at least an OEM license for Windows. In my Opinion, if you look at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy - everyone should be allowed to use their office license at home, because no-one is going to use their office copy while they aren't there... Yet, does Microsoft allow this... certainly not. Again, why expect it from IBM. Regards Herbie -- 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 Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
I love the letter Clement! Maybe we can end it with: Mr. Palmisano we are asking you today...BREAK DOWN THIS WALL!!! (Quoting president Reagan - incase somebody had doubt where that came from) Corneel Booysen. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clement Clarke Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Hi Roger, Sam and Doc and other interested people, I have just learned that Sam is in Oz (for the first time ever). See http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22874620-16123,00.html In the past, I have spoken to a few people in IBM (gosh, I worked there for 4 years), and, if we are quick it might be possible to get it discussed. I've written something fairly quickly, and stood on the shoulders of others by incorporating their comments. I'll send it to Sam first thing tomorrow (it is sleep time in Oz) after you have commented. It is here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano .html Cheers, Clement Clarke Ian wrote: Clem If there is an interest in developing and signing such a letter to Sam I can host such and effort on my site. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM, Clement Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A letter or two to Sam might help. How about if we formulate one together and send it to him? My guess is that the email sent about students being unable to use Z/OS might form a good basis? Clem -- 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 -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Hi Roger, Sam and Doc and other interested people, I have just learned that Sam is in Oz (for the first time ever). See http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22874620-16123,00.html In the past, I have spoken to a few people in IBM (gosh, I worked there for 4 years), and, if we are quick it might be possible to get it discussed. I've written something fairly quickly, and stood on the shoulders of others by incorporating their comments. I'll send it to Sam first thing tomorrow (it is sleep time in Oz) after you have commented. It is here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.html Cheers, Clement Clarke Ian wrote: Clem If there is an interest in developing and signing such a letter to Sam I can host such and effort on my site. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM, Clement Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A letter or two to Sam might help. How about if we formulate one together and send it to him? My guess is that the email sent about students being unable to use Z/OS might form a good basis? Clem -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:16:46 -, Van Dalsen, Herbie wrote: In my opinion, what makes IBM code safe in terms Auditing risk, is the fact that only IBM labs work on it. You need a really P'd-off IBMer to plant a Trojan in the code, and a few P'd-off testers to miss it during testing. So I would not be in favor of open source for the mainframe. I think too many companies depend on the current quality level of the software. What I would be in favor of is a platform where developers outside of IBM can present new software designs/ideas to be included after proper securitization. Perhaps of even more concern to IBM, but not to customers, is intellectual property. It's less difficult to securitize code than to scan it to assure that the developer included no IP to which he lacked rights. This is aggravated if the developer is a non-employee. IBM has long been reluctant to incorporate outside code in its products for this reason. When you report a software problem, don't suggest a coding resolution; you may thereby tie IBMs hands in providing the best solution. -- gil -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Clem, Nice letter. I don't know how far this effort will get us in getting access to some sort of developers license for z/OS and CICS but it is worth the effort and it will show IBM that the users do care about the survival of the Mainframe platform. I do think though that getting the letter out as a petition with signatures rather than a single letter from a single person will be more effective. More of a collaborative effort. There are strength in numbers after all. That is why I suggest that we set up a website specifically for this purpose. If someone have something of that nature available for immediate use let me know. Otherwise I will work on getting something setup for that use. It will take me a few days to get this accomplished though. -- Ian http://www.pcs305.com On Dec 5, 2007 7:31 AM, Clement Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Roger, Sam and Doc and other interested people, I have just learned that Sam is in Oz (for the first time ever). See http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22874620-16123,00.html In the past, I have spoken to a few people in IBM (gosh, I worked there for 4 years), and, if we are quick it might be possible to get it discussed. I've written something fairly quickly, and stood on the shoulders of others by incorporating their comments. I'll send it to Sam first thing tomorrow (it is sleep time in Oz) after you have commented. It is here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.html Cheers, Clement Clarke Ian wrote: -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Van Dalsen, Herbie) writes: And who came up with XA I/O? Amdahl, in order to do MDF and share channels had to do floating I/O interrupts, and related control block structures in HSA (a la XA) to get this to work. try 360/67 smp channel director for sharing channels and floating i/o interrupts ... 360/67 functional characteristics can be found here http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/ibm/360/funcChar/ ... 360/67 had 24bit 32bit addressing modes, also referenced in this post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#75 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly after future system was killed http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys there was mad rush to get out 303x in parallel with starting on xa. the architecture documents for xa, subchannel infrastructure, access registers, et all were referred to as 811 ... from their nov78 publication date (aka 29yrs ago). I had fairly complete copy ... they were individually numbered copies, classified at the highest level ... requiring special double-lock security filecabinet and periodic auditing. apparently information about people with copies leaked out and several people were approached ... aka industrial espionage ... and the feds eventually were involved. part of it involved the extrodinary lead time to move mvs to anything ... reference to killing vm370 product because they needed all the developers moved to pok to help meet mvs/xa delivery schedule http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#68 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly even before 811 documents were published we had put together a project to turn out a 16-way smp processor on a very aggresive delivery schedule. it was going great guns until it came to the attention of the head of pok that it would possibly be decades before mvs ever had 16-way smp support (some people were then invited to never show up at the pok site again). misc. past posts mentioning smp support (and/or compare-and-swap instruction) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#smp there was small advanced technology conference in pok spring of 77 (a little over 30yrs ago) with presentations on both 16-way smp and 801 risc ... for lots of topic drift, misc. 801 risc posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#801 misc. post posts mentioning 811 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#21 S/360 development burnout? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#8 Security Proportional to Risk (was: IBM Mainframe at home) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#9 Security Proportional to Risk (was: IBM Mainframe at home) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#49 Hardest Mistake in Comp Arch to Fix http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#51 Hardest Mistake in Comp Arch to Fix http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#28 ibm history note from vmshare http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#34 30th b'day original vm/370 announcement letter (by popular demand) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#28 simple architecture machine instruction set http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#58 IBM S/370-168, 195, and 3033 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#1 Wanted: Weird Programming Language http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004c.html#6 If the x86 ISA could be redone http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004g.html#24 |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| questions http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005j.html#34 IBM Plugs Big Iron to the College Crowd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005j.html#35 IBM Plugs Big Iron to the College Crowd http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005p.html#18 address space http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2005s.html#26 IEH/IEB/... names? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006b.html#28 Multiple address spaces http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006f.html#20 Old PCs--environmental hazard http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006j.html#27 virtual memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006j.html#31 virtual memory http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#16 On the 370/165 and the 360/85 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006n.html#27 sorting was: The System/360 Model 20 Wasn't As Bad As All That http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#16 Is the teaching of non-reentrant HLASM coding practices ever defensible? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007g.html#57 IBM to the PCM market(the sky is falling!!!the sky is falling!!) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#28 IBM 360 Model 20 Questions http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#71 IBM 360 Model 20 Questions misc. posts mentioning 16-way smp support http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#5 Who started RISC? (was: 64 bit Linux?) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#6 801 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#11 801 power/pc http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/97.html#5 360/44 (was Re: IBM 1130 (was Re: IBM 7090--used for business or http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/98.html#40 Comparison Cluster vs SMP? http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#82 HONE http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#58 AMP vs SMP
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.html I don't know if this is going to be convincing. Especially with spelling errors: 1. It's z/OS, not Z/OS. 2. You have spelled student as studnt in one place. It may seem nit-picky, but spelling errors always reduce the credibility of any document. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On 5 Dec 2007 05:32:10 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main (Message-ID:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clement Clarke) wrote: I've written something fairly quickly, and stood on the shoulders of others by incorporating their comments. I'll send it to Sam first thing tomorrow (it is sleep time in Oz) after you have commented. It is here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.html A good effort. Here's my slight input: 1. Please them by writing the name as they do. It's z/OS, not Z/OS. 2. In the section started by, And the creator of the Hercules system that allows Z/OS to run on PC's says, in part, start off the quoted section with his, [A]pplications tied to MVS and VSE are now firmly embedded into the infrastructure of the various information systems (banks, utilities, government, airlines) that allow our society to function the way it does. -- I cannot receive mail at the address this was sent from. To reply directly, send to ar23hur at intergate dot com -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Not really. Last week in one of the Hercules groups someone mentioned his friend developing a personal finance application on z/OS using CICS and DB2. I could not help asking if the person in question is Sam's son-in-law. On which the original poster replied in negative but indicated that the person in question is a retired IBMer and has some kind of license and uses Hercules. BTW my use of someone above is not because I'm starting an unsubstantiated rumor, I just don't remeber the name and don't have access to the machine where the message in question is stored. Mohammad On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:20:57 -0600, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:01:35 +0100, R.S. wrote: BTW2: A lot of people, including IBMers run Hercules with z/OS. Illegally. We can doubt it, criticize it, but this is fact. (no, I don't do it. No need. I have almost unlimited access to real mainframe). I have heard this. I have heard likewise that IBM performed a sweep of their facilities and all employees found running z/OS on Hercules illegally were provided copies of Flex. Alll unsubstantiatable rumors. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
---snip-- I have heard this. I have heard likewise that IBM performed a sweep of their facilities and all employees found running z/OS on Hercules illegally were provided copies of Flex. Alll unsubstantiatable rumors. I would think in the current climate, they would all be neutered with a rusty knife. ---unsnip More likely a small chainsaw... Big Blue isn't exactly notable for forgivenness... -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
What do you think of the idea to make it a signature driven petition rather than a letter from a single person? Ian http://www.pcs305.com On 12/5/07, Doc Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me try to clean up the format a bit and correct a few of the structural items... -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:54 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Ted, No you are correct, the spelling errors must be corrected. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On 12/5/07, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.ht ml I don't know if this is going to be convincing. Especially with spelling errors: 1. It's z/OS, not Z/OS. 2. You have spelled student as studnt in one place. It may seem nit-picky, but spelling errors always reduce the credibility of any document. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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 -- 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 -- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Let me try to clean up the format a bit and correct a few of the structural items... -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:54 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Ted, No you are correct, the spelling errors must be corrected. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On 12/5/07, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.ht ml I don't know if this is going to be convincing. Especially with spelling errors: 1. It's z/OS, not Z/OS. 2. You have spelled student as studnt in one place. It may seem nit-picky, but spelling errors always reduce the credibility of any document. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:11 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Ever wonder how much money IBM is paying to Fujitsu for PR/SM!?! Since PR/SM is based on VM, I would say ZERO. SNIP MDF was not VM under the covers. VM had to be greatly modified (at least modules had to be based on non-documented instructions for all the same things MDF had to do). snip Also, MDF stood for Multiple Domain Facility (not support). snip Yeah, I at the time I was writing that, my interruptible interrupt handler got distracted and I missed that I was giving the definition of MDF... Senior, overloaded, over committed moment there. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Have to disagree with not making the source open again...as it once was... Having the opportunity to modify / change as the need arose was great for me coming up through the learning process .Learned much and taught/passed on the same. Think many Linux / Sun people would agree .. But even when it was open and a new release was published , any mod's had to be re-fitted if we needed /wanted them . Many of those mod's and ideas was placed in new releases over time , but not without testing at IBM and as well as user alpha/beta sites..and the support -- back then --was much better (another issue because of retiring personnel -- lol) .. -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wells Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:11 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Have to disagree with not making the source open again...as it once was... Having the opportunity to modify / change as the need arose was great for me coming up through the learning process .Learned much and taught/passed on the same. Think many Linux / Sun people would agree .. But even when it was open and a new release was published , any mod's had to be re-fitted if we needed /wanted them . Many of those mod's and ideas was placed in new releases over time , but not without testing at IBM and as well as user alpha/beta sites..and the support -- back then --was much better (another issue because of retiring personnel -- lol) .. From what I understand, many sites (mine included) don't allow any sort of exit in any z/OS product unless it is critically necessary. This may have something to do with IBM thinking that releasing the source to z/OS and other products to be unnecessary. Let's face it. What we bit twiddlers want is not really very relevant to our management and so not relevant to IBM. More dumbing down and so commoditizing our skills to the least level needed to get the work done. The ultimate objective would be to be able to run a company with people who don't even need a high school level of training. The ultimate replaceable serf. -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
I didn't know that there were z/VM or other z Series PC emulators available... On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:01:20 -0600, Rich Smrcina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm certainly in favor of that, in addition to expanding the letter to include other System z operating systems. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Van Dalsen, Herbie) writes: And who came up with XA I/O? Amdahl, in order to do MDF and share channels had to do floating I/O interrupts, and related control block structures in HSA (a la XA) to get this to work. re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#75 T3 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#76 T3 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly for other topic drift, a big part of the queued subchannel i/o interface was to compensate for the enormous mvs pathlength to (re)drive i/o ... lots of i/o idle between the end of the previous operation and initiating the next operation. part of this was also predicated that during the 70s, systems started to shift from being significantly processor constrained/bottlenecked to more and more being i/o bottlenecked. i had started pointing this out early ... and at one point some disk division executive assinged their performance group to refute the characterizations (i.e. over more than a decade, the relative disk system thruput had declined by an order of magnitude; aka disks got faster ... but other parts of systems had gotten an order of magnitude faster still). after some period they came back and pointed out that I had slightly understated the problem. this eventually turned into share presentation on how to optimize systems for disk thruput. the initial justification was that the queued interface allowd just moving the redrive operation from mvs kernel into the microcode of the same processor (not even offloaded to different processor), that the microcode engineers could do a significantly better redrive implementation that the mvs software developers. i had worked on a 5-way smp project in 75 where the processor complex had significant microcode capability ... some past posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#bounce and i had defined a queued i/o interface ... but it included being able to offload much of it to a separate/decidated processor. i had also defined a queued microcode interface for dispatching ... allowing processors to pick off work w/o having to go thru the kernel function. this was canceled w/o shipping ... and some of the same people then reconstituted to work on 16-way smp effort mentioned in previous post. i was allowed to play disk engineer in bldgs. 1415 ... misc. posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#disk and one of the things i worked on was the whole testcell testing infrastructure that was being done on stand-alone dedicated machines. They had tried MVS at one point with a single testcell but experienced 15mins MTBF (hangs, crashes, etc, requiring manual intervention and MVS reboot). I undertook to rewrite the i/o supervisor so that multiple testcells could be tested concurrently an the same machine in an operating system environment. This turned out to have very low processor utilization and so the engineers started also using the test machines for other purposes. bldg 15 got one of the first 3033 engineering machines (outside of POK) for disk testing. partly because things were going very well ... they also managed to put together 16 3330 disk drives and 3830 controllers where the machine could be concurrently used for other purposes. this was during a period when there was heavy 3880 controller development and testing going on. at one pointer there was a formal product performance acceptance test for the 3880 done in STL using standard operating system testing. then bright and early one monday i got a call from the engineers in bldg 15 asking what i had done over the weekend to totally destroy there system thruput. I said I hadn't done anything ... and they claimed they hadn't done anything. So i had to start diagnosing what went one. It turns out that over the weekend, they had replaced the 3830 (for the string of 16 3330 drives) with a 3880 controller. The problem was that in the move from 3830 to 3880 they went from a (fast) horizontal microcoded processor to a much slower vertical microcoded processor (with a separate data path). As a result, the 3880 had much slower command and funtion processing ... and initially failed the formal product performance acceptance test. The 3880 was then tweaked to present early interrupt to the channel (indicating operation complete) before the 3880 had finished all its operation. Then the 3880 could complete its operation in parallel with the operating system processing the interrupt and getting around to redriving i/o. This didn't bother the standard operating system formal performance acceptance tests. The problem was that I had significantly redone the I/O subsystem, not only to make it much more reliable and available than standard MVS ... but interrupt processing was dramatically faster than standard MVS ... and would get around to redriving i/o
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Well, I've got no problem with that. Alternately, we can add names to the end of the letter (sort of a we the undersigned thing). On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:20:54 -0600, Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you think of the idea to make it a signature driven petition rather than a letter from a single person? Ian http://www.pcs305.com On 12/5/07, Doc Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me try to clean up the format a bit and correct a few of the structural items... -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:54 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Ted, No you are correct, the spelling errors must be corrected. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On 12/5/07, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam% 20Palmisano.ht ml I don't know if this is going to be convincing. Especially with spelling errors: 1. It's z/OS, not Z/OS. 2. You have spelled student as studnt in one place. It may seem nit-picky, but spelling errors always reduce the credibility of any document. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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 -- 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 -- -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:06:01 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: I didn't know that there were z/VM or other z Series PC emulators available... That's a joke, right? Certainly Linux for z/Series runs on Hercules. Others, being illegal, are less publicized. On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:01:20 -0600, Rich Smrcina wrote: I'm certainly in favor of that, in addition to expanding the letter to include other System z operating systems. -- gil -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Herbie, I really must disagree with your assertion that closed-source = safe. The opposite is more often true. A couple of points: 1) Open source doesn't mean open committers. Take the Hercules license as an example: Anyone is free to fork the source code, provide their own version, so long as they make all of the source code available. They are not forced to allow anyone to submit changes to their version. 2) I never suggested that the open source z-arch reference implementation would be used to run your safety-conscious workloads. 3) I'm not suggesting anything about z/OS or z/VM code (yet). In the end, closed architectures usually die. The market will simply not tolerate them in the long run. Sun has realized this - look at what they are doing with Sparc and Solaris. (They had the advantage of being forced to do so :-) IMO, if IBM locks up the z Architecture with IP, it only devalues it to the point of irrelevance. While they are apparently worried about z architecture emulators cutting into their margins for low-end systems, their real competition is in z/OS cross-compilation and API emulator environments, which are improving all the time. Maybe they think that their future is in z/VM virtualization of Linux, but their competition will probably be pretty tough. Consider this: what if z hardware OEMs once again flourished to the point of say a 50% market share? - Wouldn't the overall mainframe market grow, or at least not shrink as much? - Wouldn't IBM still be able to sell high-margin software and services? - How much software and services revenue will IBM get when z/OS customers re-target their COBOL/CICS/JCL to run on MicroFocus-like platforms? Many will disgree; saying that obviously IBM has done the big-picture analysis and has chose their path accordingly. I think that it is more likely a turf issue or a prisoner's dilemma. Unlike Sun, their success means that they won't be forced to open the z architecture until it is too late. Kirk Wolf On Dec 5, 2007 6:16 AM, Van Dalsen, Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kirk wrote: IMO - - The architecture *interfaces* (POP) should be completely public - An open-source software-based *reference* implementation should be available (Hercules++ ?) - Software should be available through something like PWD at costs that promote developers of all sizes to support the platform In my opinion, what makes IBM code safe in terms Auditing risk, is the fact that only IBM labs work on it. You need a really P'd-off IBMer to plant a Trojan in the code, and a few P'd-off testers to miss it during testing. So I would not be in favor of open source for the mainframe. I think too many companies depend on the current quality level of the software. What I would be in favor of is a platform where developers outside of IBM can present new software designs/ideas to be included after proper securitization. Regards Herbie -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 12/05/2007 09:56:36 AM: even before 811 documents were published we had put together a project to turn out a 16-way smp processor on a very aggresive delivery schedule. it was going great guns until it came to the attention of the head of pok that it would possibly be decades before mvs ever had 16-way smp support (some people were then invited to never show up at the pok site again). misc. past posts mentioning smp support (and/or compare-and-swap instruction) But actually it did not take decades, as the original release of MVS/XA in 1982 functionally supported 16-way SMP. Of course there were no such processors at the time (nothing greater than 2-way until the 4-way 3084), but it did run for testing purposes using 16 virtual CPUs on a modified version of VM. Of course, as larger processors were actually built, additional was done (and continues to be done) to address performance/scaling issues. Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Why not have SHARE go over this letter/draft and have them drive this letter as wellcould represent all...?? -- Email Disclaimer This E-mail contains confidential information belonging to the sender, which may be legally privileged information. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity addressed above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of the E-mail or attached files is strictly prohibited. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, Dec 5, 2007 at 5:07 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doc Farmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope, no joke. Pretty much my entire career has been focused on MVS and z/OS. While I know about the other z Architectures, I've never looked into their emulation. Okay, I dabbled with OS/400, once, but I was young and reckless... Well, a little bit of terminology cleanup is needed here. There is only one z/Architecture, and that's what defines the hardware. There are a number of operating systems that will run on that hardware, z/OS being one of them, as well as VSE, VM, Linux, TPF, and possibly others. Only one emulator is needed for any of them, since Hercules fits that bill quite nicely. If you want to get really picky, Hercules is multiple architecture emulators rolled into one: 370, XA,, ESA, S/390, zSeries, etc. Anything that will run on the real hardware works pretty well on the emulator(s). The only operating systems that are legal to run on Hercules are Linux, and MVS 3.8 (I think). But, that discussion has been flogged to death many, many times. Mark Post -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
I'm certainly in favor of that, in addition to expanding the letter to include other System z operating systems. Ian wrote: What do you think of the idea to make it a signature driven petition rather than a letter from a single person? Ian http://www.pcs305.com -- Rich Smrcina VM Assist, Inc. Phone: 414-491-6001 Ans Service: 360-715-2467 rich.smrcina at vmassist.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/richsmrcina Catch the WAVV! http://www.wavv.org WAVV 2008 - Chattanooga - April 18-22, 2008 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Nope, no joke. Pretty much my entire career has been focused on MVS and z/OS. While I know about the other z Architectures, I've never looked into their emulation. Okay, I dabbled with OS/400, once, but I was young and reckless... On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:36:54 -0600, Paul Gilmartin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:06:01 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: I didn't know that there were z/VM or other z Series PC emulators available... That's a joke, right? Certainly Linux for z/Series runs on Hercules. Others, being illegal, are less publicized. On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:01:20 -0600, Rich Smrcina wrote: I'm certainly in favor of that, in addition to expanding the letter to include other System z operating systems. -- gil -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Looks pretty good! I'd suggest we expand on the section regarding the benefits to the developers (including security bods like me), but also the benefits to IBM. Your letter mentioned students. Considering the lack of mainframe experience I keep hearing about from recruiters, HR bods and project managers, etc., I would think IBM would be VERY interested in allowing the mini-z/OS to be put out in the colleges and tech training centres. Familiarity with mainframing will provide IBM with a groundswell of potential users. It'll also put paid to the oft-repeated lie that the mainframe is dead - let's face it, mainframes are the most stable, most secure and most efficient commercially available computer systems available EVER. Covering the smaller shops would be (to my mind, anyway) a great opportunity to build IBM's market progression from blades or i-Series to z-Series that customers can cope with. I liked the Welcome to Oz part of the message as well, but I think you should probably include a public service message about avoiding Neighbours... If nothing else, it would be nice to see IBM and T3T be able to settle this without recourse to the judicial branch... On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:31:46 +0900, Clement Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Roger, Sam and Doc and other interested people, I have just learned that Sam is in Oz (for the first time ever). See http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22874620-16123,00.html In the past, I have spoken to a few people in IBM (gosh, I worked there for 4 years), and, if we are quick it might be possible to get it discussed. I've written something fairly quickly, and stood on the shoulders of others by incorporating their comments. I'll send it to Sam first thing tomorrow (it is sleep time in Oz) after you have commented. It is here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam% 20Palmisano.html Cheers, Clement Clarke Ian wrote: Clem If there is an interest in developing and signing such a letter to Sam I can host such and effort on my site. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM, Clement Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A letter or two to Sam might help. How about if we formulate one together and send it to him? My guess is that the email sent about students being unable to use Z/OS might form a good basis? Clem -- 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 -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 07:20 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: I have heard this. I have heard likewise that IBM performed a sweep of their facilities and all employees found running z/OS on Hercules illegally were provided copies of Flex. Alll unsubstantiatable rumors. I would think in the current climate, they would all be neutered with a rusty knife. Shane ... -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:01:35 +0100, R.S. wrote: BTW2: A lot of people, including IBMers run Hercules with z/OS. Illegally. We can doubt it, criticize it, but this is fact. (no, I don't do it. No need. I have almost unlimited access to real mainframe). I have heard this. I have heard likewise that IBM performed a sweep of their facilities and all employees found running z/OS on Hercules illegally were provided copies of Flex. Alll unsubstantiatable rumors. -- gil -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
---snip--- In my opinion, what makes IBM code safe in terms Auditing risk, is the fact that only IBM labs work on it. You need a really P'd-off IBMer to plant a Trojan in the code, and a few P'd-off testers to miss it during testing. So I would not be in favor of open source for the mainframe. I think too many companies depend on the current quality level of the software. What I would be in favor of is a platform where developers outside of IBM can present new software designs/ideas to be included after proper securitization. --unsnip-- Personally, I'd prefer Open Source, with the restriction that NONE of it could be included in a software product. This would allow a better understanding of interfaces. Mavericks could be punished by some very expensive litigation and contract terms/licensing agreements would make this abundantly clear. Not to mention loss of IBM support for modified IBM code that might be included in a product, although making this determination could be very expensive, both to IBM and its customers. And Program Product code for which competition exists, like DF/Sort, would be exempted from Open Souce requirements. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Ever wonder how much money IBM is paying to Fujitsu for PR/SM!?! Since PR/SM is based on VM, I would say ZERO. Remember Amdahl came out with MDF (Multiple Domain Support) before IBM even thought to come out with PR/SM. Remember, IBM came out with VM long before Amdahl even existed as a company. Also, MDF stood for Multiple Domain Facility (not support). - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Ted, No you are correct, the spelling errors must be corrected. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On 12/5/07, Ted MacNEIL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.html I don't know if this is going to be convincing. Especially with spelling errors: 1. It's z/OS, not Z/OS. 2. You have spelled student as studnt in one place. It may seem nit-picky, but spelling errors always reduce the credibility of any document. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Clem, Good start, but I have another idea that might also help. IBM's actual pool of customers has, I think we would all agree, been shrinking. Yes they have been selling more MIPS and lots of physical machines, but to an increasingly limited set of customers. The biggest bang for the buck IBM could have would be to provide the scale and pricing to encourage small businesses to bet the farm on IBM mainframe computing technology (not i, not p, not x but z). What about adding a reference to how IBM *used* to supply the administrative computing technology to universities all over the world and now can count such installations on the fingers of one or two hands? Why shouldn't IBM get back into that arena in a big way with donations and outright grants to universities to run their very own z/Arch hardware (not share some remote resource at a perhaps *competing* university)? Even if they only are used as secure DB servers and Linux farms, it gets the technology into the university, and who knows what can flow from that? TCO is important to university trustees as well as corporations, and what's greener than reducing a university's carbon footprint with z/Arch technology? Unfortunately, I also have to remind us all of the statement made by a previous IBM CEO (and no, I don't remember which one) who told his shareholders and investor analysts in no uncertain terms that IBM would always be in high margin businesses, and that if any part of their business became low margin or commoditized, IBM would exit that business forthwith. (C.F. the IBM printer and PC businesses, now no longer in the IBM sales catalog.) Under 200 MIPS z/Arch is obviously a low margin business ripe for commoditization (that is, after all, what we're asking him to do here). I suspect our pleas will fall on quite deaf ears. However, it is still worth asking, IMHO. Thank you for taking this on. Peter -Original Message- From: Clement Clarke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:32 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Hi Roger, Sam and Doc and other interested people, I have just learned that Sam is in Oz (for the first time ever). See http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,22874620-16123,00.html In the past, I have spoken to a few people in IBM (gosh, I worked there for 4 years), and, if we are quick it might be possible to get it discussed. I've written something fairly quickly, and stood on the shoulders of others by incorporating their comments. I'll send it to Sam first thing tomorrow (it is sleep time in Oz) after you have commented. It is here: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oscarptyltd/Letter%20to%20Sam%20Palmisano.h tml This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Kirk wrote: IMO - - The architecture *interfaces* (POP) should be completely public - An open-source software-based *reference* implementation should be available (Hercules++ ?) - Software should be available through something like PWD at costs that promote developers of all sizes to support the platform In my opinion, what makes IBM code safe in terms Auditing risk, is the fact that only IBM labs work on it. You need a really P'd-off IBMer to plant a Trojan in the code, and a few P'd-off testers to miss it during testing. So I would not be in favor of open source for the mainframe. I think too many companies depend on the current quality level of the software. What I would be in favor of is a platform where developers outside of IBM can present new software designs/ideas to be included after proper securitization. Regards Herbie -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kirk Wolf Sent: 04 Desember 2007 10:39 nm To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Its great that IBM informally supports IBM-MAIN, but most of the support comes from users. Doesn't IBM benefit from IBM-MAIN as well? I agree with many others on this thread - an open z architecture platform benefits not only users, but IBM. IMO - - The architecture *interfaces* (POP) should be completely public - An open-source software-based *reference* implementation should be available (Hercules++ ?) - Software should be available through something like PWD at costs that promote developers of all sizes to support the platform Kirk Wolf On Dec 4, 2007 1:49 PM, Chase, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or IBM-MAIN. We already get quite a bit of support from IBM right here. -- 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 Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Steve, I did not say Amdahl was bad altogether, all I said was, and your statement But like I said before, Amdahl died because upper management lost their understanding of the company and their customers just proved my point, they were not committed enough to see it thru. My question then is... Do we know enough about these other 2 companies... would they be committed enough or are they fly by night(ers) what wil make the money while it is there to make, but... I just think that before we criticize IBM altogether about this... Regards Herbie Ever wonder how much money IBM is paying to Fujitsu for PR/SM!?! Remember Amdahl came out with MDF (Multiple Domain Support) before IBM even thought to come out with PR/SM. And who came up with XA I/O? Amdahl, in order to do MDF and share channels had to do floating I/O interrupts, and related control block structures in HSA (a la XA) to get this to work. And in another comment about 64 bit, in order for the machine to have more than 2GB to share between DOMAINS (LPARs for you PR/SM folk), the hardware registers had to support extended addressability. Similar to the 3033 26 bit addressing when the 3033MP came along (I was not at Amdahl when the 5995M machines were rolled out - and I didn't get to discuss much with that future machine's personnel, so I don't know its internals at all). Then there is ye good ole CF (Coupling Facility). At Amdahl I remember some discussions about an external storage system and how we would effect this so that the storage was shared between two or more CECs. It was said by someone at that point (1989) that we would have to wait for IBM to do it first or we would have to support our method AND their method (assuming they did it differently). So from this you can see that the company had a lot on the ball in the area of RD up to 1989 when some of us macrocode developers were shown the door (interestingly enough, this was during ESA implementation). But the point is, Amdahl had quite a wealth of Patents it owned that were being cross licensed to IBM and other PCMs. And obviously IBM and Amdahl were reading each other's patent filings to try to figure out what the other was doing. And, the support question raised in another posting is very interesting to me. Amdahl had a group that wrote architectural testing programs (e.g., DIRT, 8E7, and Alpha just to name three) to verify that Amdahl's machines did EXACTLY what the PoO called for. And as a developer, we had to sometimes run a test of our own on an equivalent IBM machine to ensure that we gave the same results, OR, a letter was sent to IBM asking for clarification when the following program is run But like I said before, Amdahl died because upper management lost their understanding of the company and their customers -- in 1990 Amdahl's market share was 50% of all IBM Mainframe PCMs, which translated to approximately 7% of the IBM Mainframe market. And then they started losing market share because of their loss of vision. So some of the top execs were let go by Fujitsu after Fujitsu exercised its option to buy out the company. Then, as I understand it, the company was renamed and became a holding company for Fujitsu IP. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- 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 Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
At 12/3/2007 05:04 PM, Dave Kopischke wrote: With all due respect, I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is IBM's property and they are entitled to sell it or allow access to it or give it away in any way they see fit. And that includes protecting it in any manner and with whatever ferocity they feel appropriate. WADR (BTW, I hate that phrase...) WADR: I don't believe I said anything at all about IBM having an obligation Of course they don't. I was only describing the current circumstances as I see them. But even though I understand that IBM does not have an obligation, I don't therefore believe that we, who are adversely affected by this non-obligation, should simply stand silently by and let this deterioration of our community just happen. Like most of what happens in this world, this is just a struggle between competing interests, and IBM is just one player in this struggle. Unfortunately, the struggle is somewhat out of balance. Especially if we just stand by and let it happen. Also unfortunately, in this struggle the major power is too short-term goal bound to see the long range benefits of broadening this community instead of strangling it. (And other large powers are too complacent to help out.) Still, those of us who are directly affected have options for influencing IBM's decision process: The law is one such. That's what PSI and T3 are trying to use by going to the courts. Negotiation is another such tool. FSI was trying to follow that path, but it doesn't look like it's working so well. (I wouldn't be surprised if we saw FSI filing suit in the near future as well.) Collective action is another such path. The PWDFLEXES group (tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pwdflexes) is trying to take action along those lines. Interesting times ... Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com 736 Fox Hollow RoadVOICE:540-456-8536 Afton, VA 22920FAX: 540-456-6658 At 12/3/2007 05:04 PM, Dave Kopischke wrote: On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 05:43:41 -0500, David Cole wrote: As Ralph Johnson noted in his post to the FLEX-ES listserv, Interesting! http://www.sys-con.com/read/468626.htm IBM's intransigence in its so called negotiations with FSI, its belligerence with PSI, its bullying of T3 and its total shunning of Hercules has created a substantial threat to my business and the business of a hundred or two other small mainframe developers. I no longer believe that IBM is acting in the long term interest of the z/OS industry. Or more accurately, I believe that IBM's focus on z/OS has changed from growth to consolidation, and that they see themselves less as a hardware/software company and more as services company. Their actions with respect to the z/OS world are utterly anti-competitive and in total disregard of what is needed to nurture the long term health of this portion of their business. With all due respect, I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is IBM's property and they are entitled to sell it or allow access to it or give it away in any way they see fit. And that includes protecting it in any manner and with whatever ferocity they feel appropriate. But I also whole-heartedly agree with your sentiment as it relates to the good of our industry and our profession. Protectionist policies rarely stimulate growth. I think many on this list have complained about this for years. I think there's a better and more profitable business model to embrace. One that stimulates growth, encourages education in the platform, and allows for long-term growth and stability. That would include a no- or low-cost personal- use version that can be used for educational purposes. Low-cost entry-level hardware such as that offered by PSI. And special consideration for independent developers and their products. It would be interesting to pose this kind of option to a vote of IBM's shareholders. Protectionist anti-growth business model or a business model that embraces the future. I can't agree that IBM is obliged to do any of this though. If IBM feels it is in their best interest to stifle growth in z/OS and embrace policies that ensure extinction, that is their right. If you elect me president, CEO and chairman of IBM, I promise things would be different. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
It is another OS/2 debacle, isn't it? Best OS at the time, and we had to put up with a decade of Windows 98 etc before they got a relatively stable OS with Win 2k etc. All because of money... see next email. Clement Clarke David Cole wrote: At 12/3/2007 05:04 PM, Dave Kopischke wrote: With all due respect, I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is IBM's property and they are entitled to sell it or allow access to it or give it away in any way they see fit. And that includes protecting it in any manner and with whatever ferocity they feel appropriate. WADR (BTW, I hate that phrase...) WADR: I don't believe I said anything at all about IBM having an obligation Of course they don't. I was only describing the current circumstances as I see them. But even though I understand that IBM does not have an obligation, I don't therefore believe that we, who are adversely affected by this non-obligation, should simply stand silently by and let this deterioration of our community just happen. Like most of what happens in this world, this is just a struggle between competing interests, and IBM is just one player in this struggle. Unfortunately, the struggle is somewhat out of balance. Especially if we just stand by and let it happen. Also unfortunately, in this struggle the major power is too short-term goal bound to see the long range benefits of broadening this community instead of strangling it. (And other large powers are too complacent to help out.) Still, those of us who are directly affected have options for influencing IBM's decision process: The law is one such. That's what PSI and T3 are trying to use by going to the courts. Negotiation is another such tool. FSI was trying to follow that path, but it doesn't look like it's working so well. (I wouldn't be surprised if we saw FSI filing suit in the near future as well.) Collective action is another such path. The PWDFLEXES group (tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pwdflexes) is trying to take action along those lines. Interesting times ... Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com 736 Fox Hollow RoadVOICE:540-456-8536 Afton, VA 22920FAX: 540-456-6658 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:04:52 -0600, Dave Kopischke wrote: I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is IBM's property and they are entitled to sell it or allow access to it or give it away in any way they see fit. Dave, that may well be true from a strictly legal point of view. But from a moral point of view, I would contend (perhaps controversially) that IBM *does* have a moral obligation to the rest of us with respect to z/OS and the mainframe architectures. IBM worked long and hard over many years to successfully establish S/360 and its successors as *the* standard computer architecture. Indeed for a 20 year period between about 1970 to 1990 S/360/370/390 was almost the only architecture which would reasonably be considered for most business systems large or small. With the result that applications tied to MVS and VSE are now firmly embedded into the infrastructure of the various information systems (banks, utilities, government, airlines) that allow our society to function the way it does. The figure of $1 trillion invested in software compatible with IBM mainframes has been widely quoted. So in a sense, z/Architecture and z/OS belong to us all. All of us, even those who never heard of a mainframe, have a vested interest in the good management of mainframe systems. IBM are the guardians of this architecture, and as guardians they have a moral duty to the rest of us to ensure that the future of these systems is not put in jeopardy for short-term financial gain. IBM have made a colossal fortune on the back of the S/360 strategy. Society has willingly paid IBM for the benefits that accrued. Now it's time for IBM to recognize that society has a legitimate stake in the mainframe technology in which we have all so heavily invested. Everyone who has ever bought products or services from companies which use mainframe computer systems (and that must be just about everyone) has contributed to IBM's research and development costs. The technology does not belong solely to IBM's shareholders and directors, it belongs morally to those who ultimately footed the bill. Dave Kopischke also wrote: I think there's a better and more profitable business model to embrace. One that stimulates growth, encourages education in the platform, and allows for long-term growth and stability. That would include a no- or low-cost personal- use version that can be used for educational purposes. Low-cost entry-level hardware such as that offered by PSI. And special consideration for independent developers and their products. If you elect me president, CEO and chairman of IBM, I promise things would be different. OK Dave, you have my vote :-) It's in everybody's interest that PSI should win this case against IBM. Those of us in particular whose livelihood depends on the viability of our IBM mainframe skills need a thriving mainframe market, one in which both large and small systems are widely available at reasonable prices. We should thank PSI for standing up and courageously fighting against the tide. The entry of T3 Technologies into the case (see http://www.t3t.com/news.aspx), coupled with the announcement of additional funding for PSI, is welcome news. The motion of intervention available on the T3 website: http://www.t3t.com/pdf/11_26_07_ibm_litigation.pdf presents a cogent synopsis of the affair, and, although lengthy, is more readable than the previous IBM and PSI documents available at http://www.platform-solutions.com/news-litigation.php Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules the people's mainframe -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Bowler) writes: IBM worked long and hard over many years to successfully establish S/360 and its successors as *the* standard computer architecture. Indeed for a 20 year period between about 1970 to 1990 S/360/370/390 was almost the only architecture which would reasonably be considered for most business systems large or small. With the result that applications tied to MVS and VSE are now firmly embedded into the infrastructure of the various information systems (banks, utilities, government, airlines) that allow our society to function the way it does. The figure of $1 trillion invested in software compatible with IBM mainframes has been widely quoted. some recent topic drift in thread that wandered into run-up/justification for 360 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#63 Remembering the CDC 6600 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#65 Remembering the CDC 6600 also referenced in the above, there was an failed/aborted attempt to take a large detour in the early 70s with the future system effort http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys motivated by the growth in the plug-compatible controller business ... discussed in more detail in this recent post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#74 System 360 EBCDIC vs. ASCII it was in the FS period that Amdahl launched his plug-compatible processor business. In the early 70s, Amdahl gave a talk at MIT where he was quized about it. One of the questions was what justification did he use to raise funding for the company. The response was something about customers had already spent $200b in 360-based application software, and even if IBM were to totally walk away from 360 (could possibly be considered a veiled reference to the future system project), that software base would be sufficient to keep him in business through the end of the century (i.e. the $200b number was less than a decade after 360 had been announced). The future system distraction drew a lot of resources away from 370 activities. When future system was finally killed, there was mad scramble to get software and hardware products back into the 370 product pipeline. The lack of products in the 370 product pipeline possibly contributed to market opportunities for clone processor vendors. The 303x were part of that mad scramble ... which was effectively started in parallel with what was to become 3081 and 370-xa. recent post going into details of 303x effort http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007p.html#1 what does xp do when system is copying however, it was the long lead-time to do mvs/xa and the associated mad scramble that led to justification to kill vm370 and transfer everybody from the burlington mall vm370 group to pok ... supposedly as necessary in order to meet the mvs/xa schedule. endicott eventually did manage to acquire the vm370 product mission and keep it alive ... but effectively had to reconstitute the group from scratch. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. Anne Lynn Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: some recent topic drift in thread that wandered into run-up/justification for 360 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#63 Remembering the CDC 6600 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#65 Remembering the CDC 6600 also referenced in the above, there was an failed/aborted attempt to take a large detour in the early 70s with the future system effort http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys motivated by the growth in the plug-compatible controller business ... discussed in more detail in this recent post http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#74 System 360 EBCDIC vs. ASCII re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#68 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly i wasn't exactly unbiased ... i had somewhat ridiculed the future system effort during the period (drawing comparison with a cult movie that had been playing down in central sq) and continued to work on 370 stuff (including making statements about the resource manager, that i already had running, was better than the theoritical pipe dreams being specified in future system architecture documents). slightly related old email from the period http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430 http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750827 in the mad rush, after FS was killed, contributed to decisions to pickup some of the work (that i had continued to do) and ship it in products. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
I hate to say it, but I hope IBM loses this legal fight. Why? Come one, be serious. How many of us here would LOVE to have our own mainframe sitting on a spare laptop, just for bragging rights alone? Well, I just finished up this work on my mainframe, and... is an ego boost equivalent to getting an office visit from the Grace Hopper Cheerleaders! I know just having a small test platform like that would be a fantastic addition to the cool factor that a Supreme Nerd God like myself (as verified by http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php ) needs for street cred with the plastic pocket protector crowd! Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each copy. That'll help your bottom line (not to mention your pre-Christmas sales, which I know you depend on for 70% of your annual income) and make several dozen tech-heads like myself very, very happy! -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
I was thinking (dreaming) today about what if when I giving training for MVS stuff and each student had their own mainframe instead of connecting to a central one. We could do so much more. Here is what I wonder. Does IBM want to be a software company, a hardware company, or a service provider? Or what? No matter what, though, making z/OS software accessible for more people to learn can only increase IBM's profits no matter what they want to be. I mean, come one, I'm not going to replace my spread sheets with a CICS application. Anyway, well put, Doc. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2007 18:13 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I hate to say it, but I hope IBM loses this legal fight. Why? Come one, be serious. How many of us here would LOVE to have our own mainframe sitting on a spare laptop, just for bragging rights alone? Well, I just finished up this work on my mainframe, and... is an ego boost equivalent to getting an office visit from the Grace Hopper Cheerleaders! I know just having a small test platform like that would be a fantastic addition to the cool factor that a Supreme Nerd God like myself (as verified by http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php ) needs for street cred with the plastic pocket protector crowd! Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each copy. That'll help your bottom line (not to mention your pre-Christmas sales, which I know you depend on for 70% of your annual income) and make several dozen tech-heads like myself very, very happy! -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Wow! Is it the Fourth of Joulukuuta already? Seems like only yesterday that it was the 38th day of Kunagonda... While IBM is one of the few companies to handle multiple functions (it's a floor wax *and* a dessert topping), I sometimes think that they're believing their own hype that the mainframe is dead. Hence this distancing from what (to my mind, anyway) would be an excellent tool to allow companies to test new processes/programs/subsystems on the (very) small scale. I would LOVE to take a spare desktop and run z/OS, just to do RACF report testing and updates. Performing what if scenarios there would be far safer (and more cost effective) than risking an operational mainframe LPAR (even a test or system LPAR) if we had the chance to use such a tool. I'd bet that, given the chance, most SysProgs and Techies would give an arm, a leg, and a box of un-used 80-column cards to be able to have access to an at-home, Intel-friendly pseudomainframe. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:13 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I was thinking (dreaming) today about what if when I giving training for MVS stuff and each student had their own mainframe instead of connecting to a central one. We could do so much more. Here is what I wonder. Does IBM want to be a software company, a hardware company, or a service provider? Or what? No matter what, though, making z/OS software accessible for more people to learn can only increase IBM's profits no matter what they want to be. I mean, come one, I'm not going to replace my spread sheets with a CICS application. Anyway, well put, Doc. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2007 18:13 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I hate to say it, but I hope IBM loses this legal fight. Why? Come one, be serious. How many of us here would LOVE to have our own mainframe sitting on a spare laptop, just for bragging rights alone? Well, I just finished up this work on my mainframe, and... is an ego boost equivalent to getting an office visit from the Grace Hopper Cheerleaders! I know just having a small test platform like that would be a fantastic addition to the cool factor that a Supreme Nerd God like myself (as verified by http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php ) needs for street cred with the plastic pocket protector crowd! Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each copy. That'll help your bottom line (not to mention your pre-Christmas sales, which I know you depend on for 70% of your annual income) and make several dozen tech-heads like myself very, very happy! -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
David Cole wrote: I no longer believe that IBM is acting in the long term interest of the z/OS industry. Well here is my $0.05 worth... How long did Amdahl last ? Os shall I say How far were they prepared to support the people that trusted them enough to buy a mainframe off them... I firmly believe in competition, but so many times I have seen someone coming into an area where someone else have been operating successfully for many years, undercutting the prices, not making if after the original guy went bust. I don't for one moment think IBM will end up like DEC that was bought by Olivetti?? Who was bought by Compaq who was bought by HP??? Yet, these new guys will come in, do the business for a few years, mainly because they want to make their investors money, but they will end up paying IBM so much in legitimate patent fees, that they will have to give it up. Unless it is someone big like Sun / HP, that actually have enough RD resources available... They will just become another lot that will finally drive a few more mainframe users to HP / Dell. Regards Herbie -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cole Sent: 01 Desember 2007 10:44 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly As Ralph Johnson noted in his post to the FLEX-ES listserv, Interesting! http://www.sys-con.com/read/468626.htm IBM's intransigence in its so called negotiations with FSI, its belligerence with PSI, its bullying of T3 and its total shunning of Hercules has created a substantial threat to my business and the business of a hundred or two other small mainframe developers. I no longer believe that IBM is acting in the long term interest of the z/OS industry. Or more accurately, I believe that IBM's focus on z/OS has changed from growth to consolidation, and that they see themselves less as a hardware/software company and more as services company. Their actions with respect to the z/OS world are utterly anti-competitive and in total disregard of what is needed to nurture the long term health of this portion of their business. I have options. I will survive this threat. But as the z/OS options continue to narrow, many other small developers will either fail or shift their energies to more open arenas. This is a sad time for the mainframe business. Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com 736 Fox Hollow RoadVOICE:540-456-8536 Afton, VA 22920FAX: 540-456-6658 -- 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 Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... Surely the copy of windows that you are running is fully licensed? Why expect IBM to give it away for free. Dell gives discounts on desktops to employees of companies that buy enough Dell servers from them, but they do not give it away for free, and you still need to include at least an OEM license for Windows. In my Opinion, if you look at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy - everyone should be allowed to use their office license at home, because no-one is going to use their office copy while they aren't there... Yet, does Microsoft allow this... certainly not. Again, why expect it from IBM. Regards Herbie -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield Sent: 04 Desember 2007 05:13 nm To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I was thinking (dreaming) today about what if when I giving training for MVS stuff and each student had their own mainframe instead of connecting to a central one. We could do so much more. Here is what I wonder. Does IBM want to be a software company, a hardware company, or a service provider? Or what? No matter what, though, making z/OS software accessible for more people to learn can only increase IBM's profits no matter what they want to be. I mean, come one, I'm not going to replace my spread sheets with a CICS application. Anyway, well put, Doc. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2007 18:13 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I hate to say it, but I hope IBM loses this legal fight. Why? Come one, be serious. How many of us here would LOVE to have our own mainframe sitting on a spare laptop, just for bragging rights alone? Well, I just finished up this work on my mainframe, and... is an ego boost equivalent to getting an office visit from the Grace Hopper Cheerleaders! I know just having a small test platform like that would be a fantastic addition to the cool factor that a Supreme Nerd God like myself (as verified by http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php ) needs for street cred with the plastic pocket protector crowd! Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each copy. That'll help your bottom line (not to mention your pre-Christmas sales, which I know you depend on for 70% of your annual income) and make several dozen tech-heads like myself very, very happy! -- 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 Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
How long did Amdahl last? Until 64-bit, like HDS. Even though IBM was just open (as required) with the z/Arch, both companies couldn't afford the RD. But, Amdahl really went down the tubes, while HDS still (at least) sells disk for the mainframe. I remember the last time I talked to an Amdahl rep. He was calling me (in Toronto); they no longer had a local office. I told him I wasn't interested without a Toronto presence. I do know of a couple of (anonymous) service bureaus that still have their customers on Amdahl equipment. There is (apparently) no business case to upgrade. (Obviously, they are not running 64-bit, nor supported software). - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Who said free? I'd happily pay a C-note for software like this (that's $100 American for our readers in Rio Linda). That gives IBM a clear $20 profit on the deal! As to licensing, I'm CERTAIN that the bright bulbs deep within the Armonk Giant's underground volcano laboratory in the Carribean (their work overseen by Samuel J. Palmisano sitting in a chair stroking a white cat) are developing a license-enforcement scheme that Bill Gates could only have fevered (yet geekish) dreams about. On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:15:00 -, Van Dalsen, Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... Surely the copy of windows that you are running is fully licensed? Why expect IBM to give it away for free. Dell gives discounts on desktops to employees of companies that buy enough Dell servers from them, but they do not give it away for free, and you still need to include at least an OEM license for Windows. In my Opinion, if you look at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy - everyone should be allowed to use their office license at home, because no-one is going to use their office copy while they aren't there... Yet, does Microsoft allow this... certainly not. Again, why expect it from IBM. Regards Herbie -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lindy Mayfield Sent: 04 Desember 2007 05:13 nm To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I was thinking (dreaming) today about what if when I giving training for MVS stuff and each student had their own mainframe instead of connecting to a central one. We could do so much more. Here is what I wonder. Does IBM want to be a software company, a hardware company, or a service provider? Or what? No matter what, though, making z/OS software accessible for more people to learn can only increase IBM's profits no matter what they want to be. I mean, come one, I'm not going to replace my spread sheets with a CICS application. Anyway, well put, Doc. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doc Farmer Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2007 18:13 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly I hate to say it, but I hope IBM loses this legal fight. Why? Come one, be serious. How many of us here would LOVE to have our own mainframe sitting on a spare laptop, just for bragging rights alone? Well, I just finished up this work on my mainframe, and... is an ego boost equivalent to getting an office visit from the Grace Hopper Cheerleaders! I know just having a small test platform like that would be a fantastic addition to the cool factor that a Supreme Nerd God like myself (as verified by http://www.nerdtests.com/ft_nq.php ) needs for street cred with the plastic pocket protector crowd! Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each copy. That'll help your bottom line (not to mention your pre-Christmas sales, which I know you depend on for 70% of your annual income) and make several dozen tech-heads like myself very, very happy! -- 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 Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Van Dalsen, Herbie Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... snip at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy Not really accurate, but sounds like Borland's explanation. I can read upside down (slowly). So it is possible for two people to legally read a single book simultaneously (me + somebody else). Perhaps as many as four, if they are very talented! Reading is not copying. Copying would be me reading the book and writing the words down verbatim, or with minimal changes, on another medium (like paper or a word processor). Actually, installing software on a computer is copying. Rarely is software run from the installation medium. And, there is a verbatim copy of the software, at least temporarily, in the RAM even in that case. I don't know of any current machine which can actually run a program from a storage media (the IBM 650 did as main memory was really a drum, not core). snip Regards Herbie -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lindy Mayfield) writes: I was thinking (dreaming) today about what if when I giving training for MVS stuff and each student had their own mainframe instead of connecting to a central one. We could do so much more. This was somewhat the original idea behind HONE (hands-on network environment) http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hone after the 23jun69 unbundling announcement http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#unbundle Prior to unbundling, new/young system engineers acquired quite a bit of their knowledge, working as part of team at customer installations. the unbundling announcement pretty much put an end to this apprentice-like activity. In the 60s, while an undergraduate at the univ, i was doing a large number of os/360 enhancements ... and prior to unbundling, they would cycle new SEs thru the univ. every six months (that I would get to train). HONE started out creating a number of cp67 virtual machine datacenters that would support branch office system engineers running (guest) operating systems. The cp67 virtual machine systems (running on real 360/67s) included enhancements supporting simulation of the newly announced (pre-virtual memory) 370 instructions (allowing newer guest operating system versions to be run). The science center http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech had also ported apl\360 to cms\apl and reworked it for operation in a virtual memory environment (including arbitrarily large workspaces, up to 16mbytes, rather than the somewhat toy apl\360 workspaces that were typically 16kbytes to 32kbytes). CMS\APL on HONE was leveraged to also deploy a large number of sales and marketing support applications. These applications soon dominated HONE utilization and the original HONE purpose somewhat withered away. For example, by the mid-70s, it was no longer possible to submit a customer order that hadn't first been processed by HONE configurators and/or other applications (although by this time, HONE had migrated to VM370 and APL\CMS). -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
John wrote: Not really accurate, but sounds like Borland's explanation. I can read upside down (slowly). So it is possible for two people to legally read a single book simultaneously The only time I have seen someone prepared to wait for the slow reader, was couples that are in love, and only in the early days So yes, maybe it is possible, and maybe not... Herbie -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: 04 Desember 2007 06:27 nm To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Van Dalsen, Herbie Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:15 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... snip at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy Not really accurate, but sounds like Borland's explanation. I can read upside down (slowly). So it is possible for two people to legally read a single book simultaneously (me + somebody else). Perhaps as many as four, if they are very talented! Reading is not copying. Copying would be me reading the book and writing the words down verbatim, or with minimal changes, on another medium (like paper or a word processor). Actually, installing software on a computer is copying. Rarely is software run from the installation medium. And, there is a verbatim copy of the software, at least temporarily, in the RAM even in that case. I don't know of any current machine which can actually run a program from a storage media (the IBM 650 did as main memory was really a drum, not core). snip Regards Herbie -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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 Elavon Financial Services Limited Registered in Ireland: Number 418442 Registered Office: Block E, 1st Floor, Cherrywood Business Park, Loughlinstown, Co. Dublin, Ireland Directors: Robert Abele (USA), John Collins, Terrance Dolan (USA), Pamela Joseph (USA), Declan Lynch, John McNally, Malcolm Towlson Elavon Financial Services Limited, trading as Elavon, is regulated by the Financial Regulator -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:12:40 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each One PMR on such a system would put IBM in the red. Who would pay for software support? How much? Some developers would likely freeload for service on supported systems to which they have or pretend to have access, not a welcome prospect for IBM. -- gil -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:56:23 -0500, David Cole wrote: WADR (BTW, I hate that phrase...) I just didn't want to start a flame war. We probably agree more than we disagree... And I probably read more into your post than you intended, so I apologize for that. But we are all in the same boat. We have built our living and our future on something someone else owns. We are at their mercy. That's not a very good feeling. And the way we seem to want to address it is by making our government or our courts make them play nice. I'm thinking a different strategy is more effective by pointing out their business model is not only evil, but not profitable and short sighted. Courts can make things happen after years of babbling and making lawyers billionaires. Governments can make things happen unless the target of their action makes campaign contributions. The people who make the decisions answer to their shareholders. Shareholders aren't as corruptable. They expect to make money. I think the most direct way to address this is to find a way to reach IBM's shareholders and find a way to bring this to the board of directors. Very direct, no courts, no politicians, no complaining. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:12:40 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each One PMR on such a system would put IBM in the red. Who would pay for software support? How much? Some developers would likely freeload for service on supported systems to which they have or pretend to have access, not a welcome prospect for IBM. -- gil Such software could be distributed with no support. But then, people would want access to PTFs and the like. If nothing else, that would cost IBM (or somebody) for Intenet bandwidth. Perhaps such people could fund a restricted access PTF server. IBM might, or might not, want to allow informal problem reporting. But the cost of that could be quite significant. Perhaps some sort of user group, similar to PWD? -- John McKown Senior Systems Programmer HealthMarkets Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage Administrative Services Group Information Technology The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing it. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:46:55 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:12:40 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each One PMR on such a system would put IBM in the red. Who would pay for software support? How much? Some developers would likely freeload for service on supported systems to which they have or pretend to have access, not a welcome prospect for IBM. The C-note customers would need a pay-as-you-go service model, not unlike the PC support today. (Either accept it as broken, prove it to be a manufacturer error (in which case the call is free), or pay for education via PMR.) Allowing developers to freeload isn't a bad thing -- at least it is a developer working on the mainframe platform. I can count the number of successful small mainframe developers today on the fingers of my third hand... and I only have two hands. :( -- Tom Schmidt -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Who pays for software support now? WE do. Besides, wouldn't you have to have a software contract that would *provide* said support? IBM could always draft the agreement for the PC-based z/OS to have limited coverage (an RTFM clause would probably work). Besides, IBM requires users to provide their customer number or other info which would identify what your product scope of coverage encompasses. Besides, a PMR covering the package would almost always be answered by a PMR already issued for the big iron. Whilst joking about the $100 price tag (I'd happily pay up to $129.95 plus tax), I'm certain that IBM (along with T3T and FSI) had already covered this issue before Big Blue shut the door. I'd rather see customer demand (market forces) make this software available, as opposed to the litigious bent that has been unfortunately necessary. If it makes you feel any better, I'd even be willing to have raised flooring put in one of my bedrooms, upon which the laptop running z/OS would sit in a place of honour. Howzzat? -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 13:47 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:12:40 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each One PMR on such a system would put IBM in the red. Who would pay for software support? How much? Some developers would likely freeload for service on supported systems to which they have or pretend to have access, not a welcome prospect for IBM. -- gil -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Van Dalsen, Herbie Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:55 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly SNIP Well here is my $0.05 worth... How long did Amdahl last ? Os shall I say How far were they prepared to support the people that trusted them enough to buy a mainframe off them... I firmly believe in competition, but so many times I have seen someone coming into an area where someone else have been operating successfully for many years, undercutting the prices, not making if after the original guy went bust. I don't for one moment think IBM will end up like DEC that was bought by Olivetti?? Who was bought by Compaq who was bought by HP??? Yet, these new guys will come in, do the business for a few years, mainly because they want to make their investors money, but they will end up paying IBM so much in legitimate patent fees, that they will have to give it up. Unless it is someone big like Sun / HP, that actually have enough RD resources available... They will just become another lot that will finally drive a few more mainframe users to HP / Dell. SNIPAGE Ever wonder how much money IBM is paying to Fujitsu for PR/SM!?! Remember Amdahl came out with MDF (Multiple Domain Support) before IBM even thought to come out with PR/SM. And who came up with XA I/O? Amdahl, in order to do MDF and share channels had to do floating I/O interrupts, and related control block structures in HSA (a la XA) to get this to work. And in another comment about 64 bit, in order for the machine to have more than 2GB to share between DOMAINS (LPARs for you PR/SM folk), the hardware registers had to support extended addressability. Similar to the 3033 26 bit addressing when the 3033MP came along (I was not at Amdahl when the 5995M machines were rolled out - and I didn't get to discuss much with that future machine's personnel, so I don't know its internals at all). Then there is ye good ole CF (Coupling Facility). At Amdahl I remember some discussions about an external storage system and how we would effect this so that the storage was shared between two or more CECs. It was said by someone at that point (1989) that we would have to wait for IBM to do it first or we would have to support our method AND their method (assuming they did it differently). So from this you can see that the company had a lot on the ball in the area of RD up to 1989 when some of us macrocode developers were shown the door (interestingly enough, this was during ESA implementation). But the point is, Amdahl had quite a wealth of Patents it owned that were being cross licensed to IBM and other PCMs. And obviously IBM and Amdahl were reading each other's patent filings to try to figure out what the other was doing. And, the support question raised in another posting is very interesting to me. Amdahl had a group that wrote architectural testing programs (e.g., DIRT, 8E7, and Alpha just to name three) to verify that Amdahl's machines did EXACTLY what the PoO called for. And as a developer, we had to sometimes run a test of our own on an equivalent IBM machine to ensure that we gave the same results, OR, a letter was sent to IBM asking for clarification when the following program is run But like I said before, Amdahl died because upper management lost their understanding of the company and their customers -- in 1990 Amdahl's market share was 50% of all IBM Mainframe PCMs, which translated to approximately 7% of the IBM Mainframe market. And then they started losing market share because of their loss of vision. So some of the top execs were let go by Fujitsu after Fujitsu exercised its option to buy out the company. Then, as I understand it, the company was renamed and became a holding company for Fujitsu IP. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Good points. Here are my opinions. First, you cannot really seriously run z/OS and call it a mainframe without comparable hardware. So in essence the use of the software is for training, development and other similar purposes. A copy of Windows on the other hand is the real thing. Second IBM already has a PWD system in place where they allow their z/OS software to be used just for those purposes. There are some issues about emulators that, try as I might, I just cannot understand. And as a PWD member I already can download copies of DB2, Websphere, Tivoli and a ton of other software for Windows, HP, AIX and even Linux. IBM has the right idea there. As professionals we are more likely to use and promote the use of software that we are familiar with. I can just as easily recommend to a potential customer to use BEA WebLogic and Postgres on HP-UX instead of WebSphere and DB2 on AIX. If it sounded like I think that IBM should put z/OS 1.9 on a FTP site for public download like Linux or MySQL then I wasn't clear. Their PWD system is ok, they should just loosen up a bit. Lindy -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Van Dalsen, Herbie Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2007 20:15 To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... Surely the copy of windows that you are running is fully licensed? Why expect IBM to give it away for free. Dell gives discounts on desktops to employees of companies that buy enough Dell servers from them, but they do not give it away for free, and you still need to include at least an OEM license for Windows. In my Opinion, if you look at the true meaning of copyright - it means that like reading a book, it cannot be done by more than one person at any given time without buying a second copy - everyone should be allowed to use their office license at home, because no-one is going to use their office copy while they aren't there... Yet, does Microsoft allow this... certainly not. Again, why expect it from IBM. Regards Herbie -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:46:55 -0600, Paul Gilmartin wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:12:40 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each One PMR on such a system would put IBM in the red. Who would pay for software support? How much? Some developers would likely freeload for service on supported systems to which they have or pretend to have access, not a welcome prospect for IBM. IBM has been implementing the 'solution' to that for the past year or more: There will be no PMRs from home customers since the 3270 interface reached its sunset a while back. All future customers will be required to use IBMLink! All IBM has to do is disallow home customers from using the 1-800-IBM-z/OS support line and there is no support issue left to solve. But I wonder if the SOHO z/OS support issue could be really addressed by assigning it to a third party company (SOHO z/OS Support, LLC) and then let them come up with a business model that works for customers, themselves and IBM? (Maybe that's something that FSI already proposed to IBM?) -- Tom Schmidt -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of McKown, John [ snip ] Such software could be distributed with no support. But then, people would want access to PTFs and the like. If nothing else, that would cost IBM (or somebody) for Intenet bandwidth. Perhaps such people could fund a restricted access PTF server. IBM might, or might not, want to allow informal problem reporting. But the cost of that could be quite significant. Perhaps some sort of user group, similar to PWD? Or IBM-MAIN. We already get quite a bit of support from IBM right here. -jc- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
IBM already do give software away You can get the WAS Community Edition as well as the DB2 Express Community edition. You can develop applications using DB2 Express-c and sell it for profit. Microsoft actively tries to get Mainframe shops to convert to the MS Data Center product or at leats prevent new customers to even think about the mainframe. Take a look at these pictures of adds at the Gartner Expo in Vegas this week (http://www.pcs305.com/node/182) Why do they do this? Because that is how you get interest going in your product in the IT industry today. How can you possibly expect college students or high school students to show interest in a product that they can only read about? They can go and download free operating systems, free database systems, free transaction processors anytime they want and they cah start a business based on that in a basement and build it into a billion Dollar company. (Google, Amazon, yahoo, SugarCRM etc.) But if to get close to a mainframe that same studnt will have to: 1) finish college (where no classes in Manframe was presented) 2) join one of very few companies with a mainframe 3) be boxed in to what the company wants him to develop or work on. I don't think we will see talent flocking to the mainframe anytime soon based on this model. Using Hercules you can run z/OS on Linux. Why not make it available? Same goes for CICS. Make it available for free too developers and hobbyists. (I did write about this in the past here http://www.pcs305.com/node/140 ) The only thing that will happen is more applications will be developed and IBM will gain more users. If IBM does not do something actively to get the mainframe's going it will disappear in the near future. And I don't think that the Mainframe users really cares. If they were hobbyists and were formed into well developed communities that would be a different scenario... Thats my 2 cents... Ian http://www.pcs305.com On Dec 4, 2007 12:15 PM, Van Dalsen, Herbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lindy, I agree with all the points you made below, but... Surely the copy of windows that you are running is fully licensed? Why expect IBM to give it away for free. /snip -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Its great that IBM informally supports IBM-MAIN, but most of the support comes from users. Doesn't IBM benefit from IBM-MAIN as well? I agree with many others on this thread - an open z architecture platform benefits not only users, but IBM. IMO - - The architecture *interfaces* (POP) should be completely public - An open-source software-based *reference* implementation should be available (Hercules++ ?) - Software should be available through something like PWD at costs that promote developers of all sizes to support the platform Kirk Wolf On Dec 4, 2007 1:49 PM, Chase, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or IBM-MAIN. We already get quite a bit of support from IBM right here. -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Dec 4, 2007, at 12:53 PM, McKown, John wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:47 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:12:40 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: Come on, IBM! Make that software available to IBM-MAIN'ers, RACF-L'ers, etc., for $100 a pop, and you'll be able to make at least $20 profit on each One PMR on such a system would put IBM in the red. Who would pay for software support? How much? Some developers would likely freeload for service on supported systems to which they have or pretend to have access, not a welcome prospect for IBM. -- gil Such software could be distributed with no support. But then, people would want access to PTFs and the like. If nothing else, that would cost IBM (or somebody) for Intenet bandwidth. Perhaps such people could fund a restricted access PTF server. IBM might, or might not, want to allow informal problem reporting. But the cost of that could be quite significant. Perhaps some sort of user group, similar to PWD? -- John How about SHARE? that seems reasonable option (to me). Ed -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
A letter or two to Sam might help. How about if we formulate one together and send it to him? My guess is that the email sent about students being unable to use Z/OS might form a good basis? Clem David Cole wrote: Collective action is another such path. The PWDFLEXES group (tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pwdflexes) is trying to take action along those lines. Interesting times ... -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Well said. Clem Ian wrote: IBM already do give software away You can get the WAS Community Edition as well as the DB2 Express Community edition. You can develop applications using DB2 Express-c and sell it for profit. Microsoft actively tries to get Mainframe shops to convert to the MS Data Center product or at leats prevent new customers to even think about the mainframe. Take a look at these pictures of adds at the Gartner Expo in Vegas this week (http://www.pcs305.com/node/182) Why do they do this? Because that is how you get interest going in your product in the IT industry today. How can you possibly expect college students or high school students to show interest in a product that they can only read about? They can go and download free operating systems, free database systems, free transaction processors anytime they want and they cah start a business based on that in a basement and build it into a billion Dollar company. (Google, Amazon, yahoo, SugarCRM etc.) But if to get close to a mainframe that same studnt will have to: 1) finish college (where no classes in Manframe was presented) 2) join one of very few companies with a mainframe 3) be boxed in to what the company wants him to develop or work on. I don't think we will see talent flocking to the mainframe anytime soon based on this model. Using Hercules you can run z/OS on Linux. Why not make it available? Same goes for CICS. Make it available for free too developers and hobbyists. (I did write about this in the past here http://www.pcs305.com/node/140 ) The only thing that will happen is more applications will be developed and IBM will gain more users. If IBM does not do something actively to get the mainframe's going it will disappear in the near future. And I don't think that the Mainframe users really cares. If they were hobbyists and were formed into well developed communities that would be a different scenario... Thats my 2 cents... Ian http://www.pcs305.com -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Roger Bowler wrote: On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:04:52 -0600, Dave Kopischke wrote: I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is IBM's property and they are entitled to sell it or allow access to it or give it away in any way they see fit. Dave, that may well be true from a strictly legal point of view. But from a moral point of view, I would contend (perhaps controversially) that IBM *does* have a moral obligation to the rest of us with respect to z/OS and the mainframe architectures. I most certainly agree Roger. You can compete, or co-operate. Competing means: * You must lock everything up in patents etc * You must have teams of lawyers to defend your rights * You cannot have people standing on the shoulders of those who went before. In other words, progress is slowed. etc etc Cooperation means people work together to create something better. Co-petition can be used to provide a number of different ideas. Edward de Bono says: “Companies that solely focus on competition will ultimately die. Those that focus on value creation will thrive.” http://www3.thinkexist.com/quotes/sent-by/bkjagadish/ Edward de Bono quotes http://www3.thinkexist.com/quotes/edward_de_bono/ ((Francis Charles Publius) Maltese http://www3.thinkexist.com/nationality/maltese_authors/ Psychologist http://www3.thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_psychologists/ and Writer http://www3.thinkexist.com/occupation/famous_writers/, leading authority in field of creative thinking. b.1933) Clem -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Clem If there is an interest in developing and signing such a letter to Sam I can host such and effort on my site. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM, Clement Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A letter or two to Sam might help. How about if we formulate one together and send it to him? My guess is that the email sent about students being unable to use Z/OS might form a good basis? Clem -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
Anything I can do to help? On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:07:22 -0600, Ian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clem If there is an interest in developing and signing such a letter to Sam I can host such and effort on my site. Ian http://www.pcs305.com On Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM, Clement Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A letter or two to Sam might help. How about if we formulate one together and send it to him? My guess is that the email sent about students being unable to use Z/OS might form a good basis? Clem -- 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 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cole Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 4:44 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly As Ralph Johnson noted in his post to the FLEX-ES listserv, Interesting! http://www.sys-con.com/read/468626.htm IBM's intransigence in its so called negotiations with FSI, its belligerence with PSI, its bullying of T3 and its total shunning of Hercules has created a substantial threat to my business and the business of a hundred or two other small mainframe developers. I no longer believe that IBM is acting in the long term interest of the z/OS industry. Or more accurately, I believe that IBM's focus on z/OS has changed from growth to consolidation, and that they see themselves less as a hardware/software company and more as services company. Their actions with respect to the z/OS world are utterly anti-competitive and in total disregard of what is needed to nurture the long term health of this portion of their business. SNIP I wonder if they might have missed the lessons of Amdahl? In 1989 Amdahl started down the road to destruction. Layoffs that as I recall averaged 1 every 9 months from 1989 to 1995. They decided they were a services company, then it was a software company (with UTX as their SCP), then they were a DASD company, then they were a services company, but no, wait, we are a mainframe manufacturer, uh, no, uh we are telecommunications controller maker... In Amdahl's case Fujitsu exercised their option to buy out the company, and approximately 2 years later let go those who could not get their eyes to focus. Too little too late. Meanwhile, I have watched IBM's people undercut their mainframe line because they revenue off non-mainframes. How many companies attempted a migration from their mainframe to Siebel because of IBM sales persons? Doesn't make any difference, because the churn of machines caused IBM to make money (after all, how many of those Regattas did they sell?). And as we all know, the bottom line is the only line one is to watch. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
At 12/1/2007 11:34 AM, David Day wrote: Yes, there actions are anti-competitive. But, isn't that part of being in business. You do what you can to help yourself, Certainly true. And when companies succeed too much in this strategy they become monopolistic, then the pressures to reduce price and to innovate decline, and so the capitalistic self-interest begins to diverge from the common good. This (in theory at least) is why we have democratic government, so that in can, in representing the common good, promulgate regulation to curb monopolistic self-interest to the extent that it conflicts with the broader community interest. [blah blah blah]. It doesn't seem to be working too well in recent years, though... Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com 736 Fox Hollow RoadVOICE:540-456-8536 Afton, VA 22920FAX: 540-456-6658 -- 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
Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On 1 Dec 2007 08:35:19 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Day) wrote: Your statement vis-a-vis growth to consolidation is probably dead on, but the reason IBM does not want PSI in this ball game has to do with commodity pricing vs. specialty pricing. Exodus from MVS started almost 20 years ago. Those shops that felt another platform was justified and could successfully make the transition off have done so. What we have left are the shops that are probably not going to move. Shops are still moving away from IBM Mainframes. It tends to happen when they buy into a different software package - and only a small percentage of these are IBM mainframe based. Mainframes do what they do very well, but companies want something new, and the packages that offer them something new tend to run on other hardware.The decision makers don't know whether that other hardware is adequate - but they don't see their old hardware as being sufficient. I understand the philosophy of the way I clean my garage is to move. An example in the computer industry is comparing OS-X with Windows. Apple has changed the core of its OS a couple of times to run with different types of chips, and now is Unix based.Starting over meant it was able to re-design some features that were vulnerable. Microsoft chose not to start over, but to evolve - making it much more difficult to fix old vulnerabilities. It is a lot of work to redesign a working system for a company, especially if it means changing some of the business practices.But there is a distinct upside in emptying the dirty bath water and starting over. Some of the features that are desired in new designs include: 1. The whole system is designed with modern security privacy needs in mind.The mainframe excelled in this - as long as the whole system was on the mainframe. But that is no longer the case for most shops. The system has grown in many directions. 2. The new system uses skills that are available from people coming out of College today. 3.Components are attractive - add a server here - or better yet a bunch of servers in the next county over - a bit at a time as an expense instead of as a capital expenditure. That makes it easier for managers.The downside to this is that it will be much harder to start over next time - but that will be the next manager's headache. IBM is pushing databases. Data warehouses should be an easy sell for mainframes - easier than what I observe happening. IBM is selling Unix. But what I want to see is IBM selling to the people who have moved to Sun - and now know how much it costs to get the power they want. Can they move their software over? -- 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
