Re: Open Source Security Risks (was T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly)

[Jan MOEYERSONS]

>One of the features of open source is that the source code is public.
>This means that ANYONE can read it, study it, find bugs in it, AND
>find trap doors in it! And "anyone" means anyone in the whole world!

It really is a double-edged blade... Anyone can read it and find trap doors;
true. But then it depends on what that anyone does with the knowledge thus
obtained. This anyone can try to exploit it, or can report it to the author
in order to have it fixed.
What is best: having bugs in the software and not knowing it, or knowing the
bugs are there and managing the risk of that?

Cheers,

Jantje.

--
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: Open Source Security Risks (was T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly)

[Tom Marchant]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:33:40 +0900, Clement Clarke wrote:
>
>You must agree that you will abide by the GNU terms, and not use it
>commercially without some appreciation, or for war.

What does that mean?

-- 
Tom Marchant

--
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: Open Source Security Risks (was T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly)

[Clement Clarke]

R.S. wrote:

David Cole wrote:

I think you have the open source security risks backwards, Herbie.

One of the features of open source is that the source code is public. 
This means that ANYONE can read it, study it, find bugs in it, AND 
find trap doors in it! And "anyone" means anyone in the whole world!


On the other hand open code reduces risk of existence of such holes, 
or assures better detection of such holes. This is good thing.

There are known holes in M$ software, despite it's OCO.

If anyone would like the source code of the Jol Universal Command 
Language (370 ASM version) please send me an email and I will tell where 
you can download it from.


You must agree that you will abide by the GNU terms, and not use it 
commercially without some appreciation, or for war.


Cheers,

Clement Clarke
Perth

--
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: Open Source Security Risks (was T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly)

[R.S.]

David Cole wrote:

I think you have the open source security risks backwards, Herbie.

One of the features of open source is that the source code is public. 
This means that ANYONE can read it, study it, find bugs in it, AND find 
trap doors in it! And "anyone" means anyone in the whole world!


On the other hand open code reduces risk of existence of such holes, or 
assures better detection of such holes. This is good thing.

There are known holes in M$ software, despite it's OCO.

--
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: Open Source Security Risks (was T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly)

[David Cole]

I think you have the open source security risks backwards, Herbie.

One of the features of open source is that the source code is public. 
This means that ANYONE can read it, study it, find bugs in it, AND 
find trap doors in it! And "anyone" means anyone in the whole world!


Thus, the risk of malicious code being discovered and publicized is 
far greater for open source code than it is for OCO code.


From a security point of view, I'd much rather have open source code 
than OCO code any day.


Dave Cole


At 12/5/2007 07:16 AM, 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.


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

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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

[Ed Gould]

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

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

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  
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

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

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  
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

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

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  
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

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

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  
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

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

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  
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

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

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  
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

[Thompson, Steve]

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.


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

[Ed Finnell]

 
In a message dated 12/7/2007 7:23:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Heck, he  can get the same effect from buying a Krispy Kreme franchise or 
hosting a  Star Trek convention...



>>
Good ideas and bringing them to fruition still require more than just  
blather on some eponymous list. Anyway, few years back one of the IBM reps  
thought 
it was taking too long to get dressed so she came up with Tipsy twirl or  
something. About a quarters worth of nylon and good marketing, sell for  9.95.
Makes millions...what's the old joke-'that's almost 10%'. Anyway-Happy  
Friday to the festive.



**Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000301)

--
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

[Clark Morris]

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

[Roger Bowler]

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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Ed Gould]

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

[Ted MacNEIL]

>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

[Tony Harminc]

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

[Stephen Y Odo]

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

T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly

[Phil Payne]

> I can guess who suggested this ...

Bet you can't. Entirely internal to Amdahl - remember I worked there seven 
years and had
Amdahl as a client for another eight.

> Looks like PSI have already spotted this angle ...

I posted that reference yesterday evening - do at least try to keep up.

The fun starts if PSI is right. If the information is indeed there, how did it 
get there? And
who is IBM going to ask?  There's a significant chance of Hercules being drawn 
into discovery.

-- 
  Phil Payne
  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
  +44 7833 654 800

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly

[Doc Farmer]

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
>
>
>
>
>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?).
>
>
>--
>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

[Jon Brock]

No, I'm going for the popcorn franchise for all those people watching
this play out.

Jon




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?).


--
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

[Thompson, Steve]

-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


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


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

[McKown, John]

> -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

[Chase, John]

> -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

[Roger Bowler]

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

T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly

[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?).

--
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

[Thompson, Steve]

-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:

>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.


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

[Ron Wells]

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

[Clement Clarke]

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

[Chase, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Roger Bowler
> 
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:35:38 -, Phil Payne wrote:
> >IBM has already formally stated its position.
> 
> Except that they haven't. [ snip ]
> 
> 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.

Better:  File an amicus curiae brief with the court on IBM's behalf.

-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

[Roger Bowler]

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

[Patrick Falcone]

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

[Clement Clarke]

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

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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  is using for their development work.  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

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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 compare&swap ... misc. posts about smp and/or compare&swap
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=DZ9ZBK03&DT=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

T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly

[Phil Payne]

Hmmm.  Well, first of all, T3 isn't suing anyone.  Not yet, anyway.  If its 
motion is granted
on 11 January ...

And it was IBM that started the whole business.

Secondly, appealing to Sam Palmisano is a complete waste of time.  An IBM CEO 
very rarely
interferes with a strategy already agreed with a subordinate, and in my 
judgement SP is even
less likely to do so than most.  One reason - and far from the only one - is 
that the
executive(s) actually in charge of zSeries are already executing against an 
agreed plan and
messing with it mid-flight would give them an excuse opportunity. More than 
most, he has a
reputation as a numbers man.

Thirdly, there's no business case.

Fourthly, I would avoid ALL references to Hercules in any message to IBM.  IBM 
has already
formally stated its position.  Making it MUCH worse is PSI's response to 
paragraph 34 of IBM's
Amended Complaint, identifying Hercules as a source of information that IBM 
alleges to be
trade secret.

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.

Given that PSI has asserted as part of its defence that this information is in 
Hercules, it
would not surprise me one jot if IBM decided to inquire more closely now as to 
how it got
there.

-- 
  Phil Payne
  http://www.isham-research.co.uk
  +44 7833 654 800

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html

Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly

[Mark Post]

>>> 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

[Jim Mulder]

IBM Mainframe Discussion List  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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Paul Gilmartin]

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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Rich Smrcina]

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

[McKown, John]

> -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

[Ron Wells]

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

[Thompson, Steve]

-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.


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).



Also, MDF stood for Multiple Domain Facility (not support).


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

[Kirk Wolf]

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

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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. 14&15 ... 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 in

Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly

[Ron Wells]

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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Ian]

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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Ian]

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

[Ted MacNEIL]

>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

[Arthur T.]

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

[Farley, Peter x23353]

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

[Ian]

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

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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

Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly

[Mohammad Khan]

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

[Rick Fochtman]

-


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.
 


---
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

[Rick Fochtman]

--


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.
 



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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Corneel Booysen]

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

[Shane]

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

[Clement Clarke]

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

[Paul Gilmartin]

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

[Paul Gilmartin]

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

[Van Dalsen, Herbie]

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

[Ted MacNEIL]

>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

[Van Dalsen, Herbie]

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

[Van Dalsen, Herbie]

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 R&D 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

[R.S.]

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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Ian]

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

[Clement Clarke]

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.”



Edward de Bono quotes 
 ((Francis Charles 
Publius) Maltese 
 Psychologist 
 and Writer 
, 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

[Clement Clarke]

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

[Clement Clarke]

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

[Ed Gould]

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

[Kirk Wolf]

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

[Ian]

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. 

--
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

[Chase, John]

> -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

[Tom Schmidt]

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

[Lindy Mayfield]

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

[Thompson, Steve]

-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



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 R&D resources available... They will just become
another lot that will finally drive a few more mainframe users to HP /
Dell.


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 R&D 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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Tom Schmidt]

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

[McKown, John]

> -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

[Dave Kopischke]

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

[Paul Gilmartin]

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

[Van Dalsen, Herbie]

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...
> 



> 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).



> 
> 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

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

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

[McKown, John]

> -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...
> 



> 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).



> 
> 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

[Doc Farmer]

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

[Ted MacNEIL]

>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 R&D.
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

[Van Dalsen, Herbie]

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

[Van Dalsen, Herbie]

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 R&D 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

[Doc Farmer]

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