Re: ACM award

[Tom Huegel]

What irks me even mor is the audasity of the VMware folks to steal the 'VM'
part of the name. If they wanted to be different couldn't they have used VS?


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Jim Elliott wrote:

> > Correction: *publicizing* the office productivity suite. Amoco
> > (IIRC) gets the invention prize for that little gem.
>
> To be correct, PROFS was developed as by IBM Dallas for Amoco,
> then release as a PRPQ, then as a product.
>
> Jim
>

Re: ACM award

[Jim Elliott]

> Correction: *publicizing* the office productivity suite. Amoco
> (IIRC) gets the invention prize for that little gem.

To be correct, PROFS was developed as by IBM Dallas for Amoco,
then release as a PRPQ, then as a product.

Jim

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Alan Altmark]

On Wednesday, 03/31/2010 at 11:24 EDT, Tom Huegel  
wrote:
> Are any of the IBM OS,s trade marked?

VM/ESA, z/VM, z/OS, z/VSE, and OS/390 are all registered trademarks of IBM 
(at least in the US).  As Carol posted, 
http://www.ibm.com/legal/us/en/copytrade.shtml  (I include z/VSE in my 
list because it *is* registered in a "stylized" way that is, IMO, 
indistinguishable from typewritten.)

It's easy to search the US Patent & Trademark Office database.  Just go to 
http://www.uspto.gov and use the Search Marks function.  It can be 
interesting to find out who *used* to own a trademark.  Note the trademark 
(now dead) for z10, undoubtedly explaining why IBM trademarked "System 
z10".

You can't register "VM" to protect its use as an abbreviation of "virtual 
machine".  The fact that IBM may have invented the concept is irrelevant. 
You *can* register the *appearance* of "VM" in a particular trade or 
service mark, whether by itself (stylized) or in combination with 
something else (stylized or typewritten).  In that case it doesn't matter 
what "VM" means; it's just a pair of glyphs.  Searching for "VM" in the 
USPTO database nicely illustrates the point.

Alan Altmark
z/VM Development
IBM Endicott

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Carol Everitt]

http://www.ibm.com/legal/us/en/copytrade.shtml

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Bill Munson]

I believe the z/ versions are registered trade marked 

they have an "R" by the name



z/VM® 
 


munson 
201-418-7588





Tom Huegel  
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
03/31/2010 11:24 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System 


To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: ACM award - they deserve it






Are any of the IBM OS,s trade marked? 

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Steele, Phil  
wrote:
Some of  this vast proliferation of servers was indeed (in the case of the 
vaguely cluey users) about separation of control as Dave notes below. In 
my experience, though, far more often it was  because the administration 
of the company finances found it so much easier to do a case by case 
justification, with no view whatsoever of any bigger picture. ( share a 
server farm? - you must be joking... it's my bonus here we are talking 
about!). It is for this reason that VMware  is, in my grumpy opinion, 
likely to do  little more than add an extra layer of complexity /overhead 
 top of any new hardware. The original reasoning ( or lack of it)  that 
caused this  proliferation of squillions on servers continues unabated. 
(Why do I suspect that the bean counters who run all of these companies 
never liked IT folk much any way? and were therefore most relieved when 
there was an alternative to the mainframe and hence those weird 
non-accounting types that ran them).
 
 
I know that our z/VM Z/800 has been replaced by megawatts worth of severs, 
( full rack after full rack of them!).
 
  
On the subject of IBM not trade marking VM, I wonder if it was because 
once upon a time, it often meant Virtual  Memory as well as Virtual 
Machine?
 
 
Philip Steele ( who only sound grumpy sometimes) . 
 
 
495 Harris St Ultimo NSW 2007
 
Australia
 
 
 
 
> -Original Message-
> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dave Wade
> Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2010 2:32 AM
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it
> 
> In my humble opinion the main reason VMWare (an to a lesser extent
> HyperV)
> is popular at present is because it allows bean counters to demonstrate
> huge
> instant savings. Where I work we have around 200 Windows servers, many
> were
> bought around 5 years ago so will need replacing soone. In general we
> have a
> separate server not for performance reasons but more for separation of
> control and software options. Based on a limited trial I would say we
> could
> consolidate 75% of these servers at a rate of at least 10 to 1 using
> VMWare,
> and still have enough headroom to loose a physical server with no
> performance impact. So that's take the 150 lowest loaded servers and
> replace
> them with 15 servers running VMWare. To a bean counter that's a 90%
> reduction in power consumption, a 90% reduction in floor space, and a
> 90%
> reduction in hardware support costs.I am sure some think that should
> also be
> a 90% reduction in support staff, but of course that's not true. Whilst
> VMWare is fun to manage, it needs managing and also capacity planning.
> In
> practice the reduction is some what less than 90%. . To use the
> vernacular,
> a VMWare server will be a "fully loaded server" with multiple CPU's,
> lots of
> RAM, multiple SAN and Network interfaces for load balancing and
> resilience.
> In order to fit these in it will be a 2U server and some of our
> existing are
> 1U, on the other hand others are 4U... BUT there will be a big saving.
> 
> Now compare that with zVM. With that you were frugal from day1 so there
> aren't any savings. So the bean counters can't show cost reductions, so
> they
> don't like it
> 
>  utterly blinkered
> 
> Dave.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Barton Robinson" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it
> 
> 
> > If you go to conferences such as CMG (Computer Management Group),
> that
> > has been a mainframe organization (meaning MVS or z/OS) since it
> > started, our VM has never been represented, but VMWare now has many
> > sessions.  It's depressing to see 80 people in entry level
> performance
> > session for VMWare and no z/VM sessions on the agenda of a mainframe
> > conference.
> > Early this year I was hearing ads for VMWare on the local radio
> station.
> > I can only assume that VM is being outmarketed worldwide (or at least
> > that VMWare is being marketed worldwide and VM is not marketed
> publicly
> > at all).
> > It doesn't matter if our mousetrap is better if nobody is out there
> > trying to get mindshare (marketing).  Preaching/grumbling 

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Tom Huegel]

Are any of the IBM OS,s trade marked?

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Steele, Phil wrote:

>  Some of  this vast proliferation of servers was indeed (in the case of
> the vaguely cluey users) about separation of control as Dave notes below. In
> my experience, though, far more often it was  because the administration of
> the company finances found it so much easier to do a case by case
> justification, with no view whatsoever of any bigger picture. ( share a
> server farm? - you must be joking... it's my bonus here we are talking
> about!). It is for this reason that VMware  is, in my grumpy opinion, likely
> to do  little more than add an extra layer of complexity /overhead  top of
> any new hardware. The original reasoning ( or lack of it)  that caused this
>  proliferation of squillions on servers continues unabated. (Why do I
> suspect that the bean counters who run all of these companies never liked IT
> folk much any way? and were therefore most relieved when there was an
> alternative to the mainframe and hence those weird non-accounting types that
> ran them).
>
>
>
>
>
> I know that our z/VM Z/800 has been replaced by megawatts worth of severs,
> ( full rack after full rack of them!).
>
>
>
>
>
> On the subject of IBM not trade marking VM, I wonder if it was because once
> upon a time, it often meant Virtual  *Memory* as well as Virtual *Machine*
> ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip Steele ( who only sound grumpy sometimes) .
>
>
>
>
>
> 495 Harris St Ultimo NSW 2007
>
>
>
> Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
>
> > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu] On
>
> > Behalf Of Dave Wade
>
> > Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2010 2:32 AM
>
> > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
>
> > Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it
>
> >
>
> > In my humble opinion the main reason VMWare (an to a lesser extent
>
> > HyperV)
>
> > is popular at present is because it allows bean counters to demonstrate
>
> > huge
>
> > instant savings. Where I work we have around 200 Windows servers, many
>
> > were
>
> > bought around 5 years ago so will need replacing soone. In general we
>
> > have a
>
> > separate server not for performance reasons but more for separation of
>
> > control and software options. Based on a limited trial I would say we
>
> > could
>
> > consolidate 75% of these servers at a rate of at least 10 to 1 using
>
> > VMWare,
>
> > and still have enough headroom to loose a physical server with no
>
> > performance impact. So that's take the 150 lowest loaded servers and
>
> > replace
>
> > them with 15 servers running VMWare. To a bean counter that's a 90%
>
> > reduction in power consumption, a 90% reduction in floor space, and a
>
> > 90%
>
> > reduction in hardware support costs.I am sure some think that should
>
> > also be
>
> > a 90% reduction in support staff, but of course that's not true. Whilst
>
> > VMWare is fun to manage, it needs managing and also capacity planning.
>
> > In
>
> > practice the reduction is some what less than 90%. . To use the
>
> > vernacular,
>
> > a VMWare server will be a "fully loaded server" with multiple CPU's,
>
> > lots of
>
> > RAM, multiple SAN and Network interfaces for load balancing and
>
> > resilience.
>
> > In order to fit these in it will be a 2U server and some of our
>
> > existing are
>
> > 1U, on the other hand others are 4U... BUT there will be a big saving.
>
> >
>
> > Now compare that with zVM. With that you were frugal from day1 so there
>
> > aren't any savings. So the bean counters can't show cost reductions, so
>
> > they
>
> > don't like it
>
> >
>
> >  utterly blinkered
>
> >
>
> > Dave.
>
> >
>
> > - Original Message -
>
> > From: "Barton Robinson" 
>
> > To: 
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:53 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > If you go to conferences such as CMG (Computer Management Group),
>
> > that
>
> > > has been a mainframe organization (meaning MVS or z/OS) since it
>
> > > started, our VM has never been represented, but VMWare now has many
>
> > > sessions.  It's depressing to see 80 people in entry level
>
> > performance
>
> > > se

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Steele, Phil]

Some of  this vast proliferation of servers was indeed (in the case of
the vaguely cluey users) about separation of control as Dave notes
below. In my experience, though, far more often it was  because the
administration of the company finances found it so much easier to do a
case by case justification, with no view whatsoever of any bigger
picture. ( share a server farm? - you must be joking... it's my bonus
here we are talking about!). It is for this reason that VMware  is, in
my grumpy opinion, likely to do  little more than add an extra layer of
complexity /overhead  top of any new hardware. The original reasoning (
or lack of it)  that caused this  proliferation of squillions on servers
continues unabated. (Why do I suspect that the bean counters who run all
of these companies never liked IT folk much any way? and were therefore
most relieved when there was an alternative to the mainframe and hence
those weird non-accounting types that ran them).

 

 

I know that our z/VM Z/800 has been replaced by megawatts worth of
severs, ( full rack after full rack of them!).

 

  

On the subject of IBM not trade marking VM, I wonder if it was because
once upon a time, it often meant Virtual  Memory as well as Virtual
Machine?

 

 

Philip Steele ( who only sound grumpy sometimes) . 

 

 

495 Harris St Ultimo NSW 2007

 

Australia

 

 

 

 

> -Original Message-

> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:ib...@listserv.uark.edu]
On

> Behalf Of Dave Wade

> Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2010 2:32 AM

> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU

> Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it

> 

> In my humble opinion the main reason VMWare (an to a lesser extent

> HyperV)

> is popular at present is because it allows bean counters to
demonstrate

> huge

> instant savings. Where I work we have around 200 Windows servers, many

> were

> bought around 5 years ago so will need replacing soone. In general we

> have a

> separate server not for performance reasons but more for separation of

> control and software options. Based on a limited trial I would say we

> could

> consolidate 75% of these servers at a rate of at least 10 to 1 using

> VMWare,

> and still have enough headroom to loose a physical server with no

> performance impact. So that's take the 150 lowest loaded servers and

> replace

> them with 15 servers running VMWare. To a bean counter that's a 90%

> reduction in power consumption, a 90% reduction in floor space, and a

> 90%

> reduction in hardware support costs.I am sure some think that should

> also be

> a 90% reduction in support staff, but of course that's not true.
Whilst

> VMWare is fun to manage, it needs managing and also capacity planning.

> In

> practice the reduction is some what less than 90%. . To use the

> vernacular,

> a VMWare server will be a "fully loaded server" with multiple CPU's,

> lots of

> RAM, multiple SAN and Network interfaces for load balancing and

> resilience.

> In order to fit these in it will be a 2U server and some of our

> existing are

> 1U, on the other hand others are 4U... BUT there will be a big saving.

> 

> Now compare that with zVM. With that you were frugal from day1 so
there

> aren't any savings. So the bean counters can't show cost reductions,
so

> they

> don't like it....

> 

>  utterly blinkered

> 

> Dave.

> 

> - Original Message -

> From: "Barton Robinson" 

> To: 

> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:53 PM

> Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it

> 

> 

> > If you go to conferences such as CMG (Computer Management Group),

> that

> > has been a mainframe organization (meaning MVS or z/OS) since it

> > started, our VM has never been represented, but VMWare now has many

> > sessions.  It's depressing to see 80 people in entry level

> performance

> > session for VMWare and no z/VM sessions on the agenda of a mainframe

> > conference.

> > Early this year I was hearing ads for VMWare on the local radio

> station.

> > I can only assume that VM is being outmarketed worldwide (or at
least

> > that VMWare is being marketed worldwide and VM is not marketed

> publicly

> > at all).

> > It doesn't matter if our mousetrap is better if nobody is out there

> > trying to get mindshare (marketing).  Preaching/grumbling to the

> choir

> > doesn't change anything.

> >

> > So when was the last time that any of you tried to get a case study

> > published showing how great your accomplishments are using z/VM?

> There

> > are very few published stories (sorry games on "z" don't impress
bean

> > counters or 

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Gary M. Dennis]

Less than an hour before reading this thread I had IPLed two x86 operating
systems under z/VM 5.3.  One is a tiny OS used as a checkpoint after major
changes to the x86 virtualization layer.  It's just  a way to make sure the
puzzle is still assembled more or less correctly. The other OS is DSL. The
IPL time for DSL up to the line-mode prompt is now 5 seconds with zero
tuning in any of the z86VM components.  Using VNC the GUI for each OS is
live-scroll capable over a VPN connection to the IBM development site in
Dallas.

The current x86 virtualization marketplace may not be as predictable (even
for bean counters) as one might imagine. Those same bean counters will be
the first ones to ask "Why not 1 box instead of 50?" just like they asked
"Why not 50 boxes instead of 500?". Wouldn't that be preferable to an ACM
award?

--.  .-  .-.  -.--
Gary Dennis
Mantissa Corporation

0 ... living between the zeros... 0


On 3/31/10 10:32 AM, "Dave Wade"  wrote:

> In my humble opinion the main reason VMWare (an to a lesser extent HyperV)
> is popular at present is because it allows bean counters to demonstrate huge
> instant savings. Where I work we have around 200 Windows servers, many were
> bought around 5 years ago so will need replacing soone. In general we have a
> separate server not for performance reasons but more for separation of
> control and software options. Based on a limited trial I would say we could
> consolidate 75% of these servers at a rate of at least 10 to 1 using VMWare,
> and still have enough headroom to loose a physial server with no
> performance impact. So that's take the 150 lowest loaded servers and replace
> them with 15 servers running VMWare. To a bean counter that's a 90%
> reduction in power consumption, a 90% reduction in floor space, and a 90%
> reduction in hardware support costs.I am sure some think that should also be
> a 90% reduction in support staff, but of course that's not true. Whilst
> VMWare is fun to manage, it needs managing and also capacity planning.  In
> practice the reduction is some what less than 90%. . To use the vernacular,
> a VMWare server will be a "fully loaded server" with multiple CPU's, lots of
> RAM, multiple SAN and Network interfaces for load balancing and resilience.
> In order to fit these in it will be a 2U server and some of our existing are
> 1U, on the other hand others are 4U... BUT there will be a big saving.
> 
> Now compare that with zVM. With that you were frugal from day1 so there
> aren't any savings. So the bean counters can't show cost reductions, so they
> don't like it
> 
> .... utterly blinkered
> 
> Dave.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Barton Robinson" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it
> 
> 
>> If you go to conferences such as CMG (Computer Management Group), that
>> has been a mainframe organization (meaning MVS or z/OS) since it
>> started, our VM has never been represented, but VMWare now has many
>> sessions.  It's depressing to see 80 people in entry level performance
>> session for VMWare and no z/VM sessions on the agenda of a mainframe
>> conference.
>> Early this year I was hearing ads for VMWare on the local radio station.
>> I can only assume that VM is being outmarketed worldwide (or at least
>> that VMWare is being marketed worldwide and VM is not marketed publicly
>> at all).
>> It doesn't matter if our mousetrap is better if nobody is out there
>> trying to get mindshare (marketing).  Preaching/grumbling to the choir
>> doesn't change anything.
>> 
>> So when was the last time that any of you tried to get a case study
>> published showing how great your accomplishments are using z/VM?  There
>> are very few published stories (sorry games on "z" don't impress bean
>> counters or executives, it's rather demeaning), we need REAL business
>> case studies showing the value of "z/VM" to real companies.  If we get
>> enough and executives do a google search on VM, maybe they will find
>> something useful?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Bill Munson wrote:
>>> Jim,
>>> 
>>> You are right, that makes me mad also.
>>> 
>>> IBM really blew it when they did not trade mark "VM"
>>> 
>>> munson
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim Elliott 
>>> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
>>> 03/30/2010 09:34 PM
>>> Please respond to
>>> The IBM z/VM Operating System 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> To
>>> I

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Gregg]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Dave Wade  wrote:
Whilst VMWare is fun to manage, it needs managing and also capacity planning

and opportunities(?), I guess, based on a background in IBM VM Perf
and CapPlan, I've been given the opportunity(?) to perform VMWare
CapPlan.. Hello CapacityIQ!(?).  All the names have been changed...
any semblance to real events, persons, past or present is purely
coincidental, but there's a lot of things, that at first blush, look a
lot like..
Regards,--
Gregg Reed
"No Plan, survives execution"

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Dave Wade]

In my humble opinion the main reason VMWare (an to a lesser extent HyperV)
is popular at present is because it allows bean counters to demonstrate huge
instant savings. Where I work we have around 200 Windows servers, many were
bought around 5 years ago so will need replacing soone. In general we have a
separate server not for performance reasons but more for separation of
control and software options. Based on a limited trial I would say we could
consolidate 75% of these servers at a rate of at least 10 to 1 using VMWare,
and still have enough headroom to loose a physical server with no
performance impact. So that's take the 150 lowest loaded servers and replace
them with 15 servers running VMWare. To a bean counter that's a 90%
reduction in power consumption, a 90% reduction in floor space, and a 90%
reduction in hardware support costs.I am sure some think that should also be
a 90% reduction in support staff, but of course that's not true. Whilst
VMWare is fun to manage, it needs managing and also capacity planning.  In
practice the reduction is some what less than 90%. . To use the vernacular,
a VMWare server will be a "fully loaded server" with multiple CPU's, lots of
RAM, multiple SAN and Network interfaces for load balancing and resilience.
In order to fit these in it will be a 2U server and some of our existing are
1U, on the other hand others are 4U... BUT there will be a big saving.

Now compare that with zVM. With that you were frugal from day1 so there
aren't any savings. So the bean counters can't show cost reductions, so they
don't like it

 utterly blinkered

Dave.

- Original Message - 
From: "Barton Robinson" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: ACM award - they deserve it


> If you go to conferences such as CMG (Computer Management Group), that
> has been a mainframe organization (meaning MVS or z/OS) since it
> started, our VM has never been represented, but VMWare now has many
> sessions.  It's depressing to see 80 people in entry level performance
> session for VMWare and no z/VM sessions on the agenda of a mainframe
> conference.
> Early this year I was hearing ads for VMWare on the local radio station.
> I can only assume that VM is being outmarketed worldwide (or at least
> that VMWare is being marketed worldwide and VM is not marketed publicly
> at all).
> It doesn't matter if our mousetrap is better if nobody is out there
> trying to get mindshare (marketing).  Preaching/grumbling to the choir
> doesn't change anything.
>
> So when was the last time that any of you tried to get a case study
> published showing how great your accomplishments are using z/VM?  There
> are very few published stories (sorry games on "z" don't impress bean
> counters or executives, it's rather demeaning), we need REAL business
> case studies showing the value of "z/VM" to real companies.  If we get
> enough and executives do a google search on VM, maybe they will find
> something useful?
>
>
>
> Bill Munson wrote:
> > Jim,
> >
> > You are right, that makes me mad also.
> >
> > IBM really blew it when they did not trade mark "VM"
> >
> > munson
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Elliott 
> > Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> > 03/30/2010 09:34 PM
> > Please respond to
> > The IBM z/VM Operating System 
> >
> >
> > To
> > IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: ACM award
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have
> >> been a member since 1970) made the following award:
> >
> >> "VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for
> >> bringing virtualization technology to modern computing
> >> environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine
> >> architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple
> >> operating systems on their desktops."
> >
> >> Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part,
> >> shouldn't we be insulted?
> >
> > Chip:
> >
> > Yes, we should be insulted. I remember being very upset the first
> > time I heard a VMware employee talk about how they had invented
> > the idea of server virtualization! Even on x86, VM386 was out
> > years before VMware (even if it failed in the market). I am still
> > upset every time I hear someone talk about "VM" when they mean
> > VMware. My reaction is, I work on the real VM!
> >
> > Jim
> > (aka "Sir Jim the Evangelist")
> >
> >
> > 

Re: ACM award - they deserve it....

[Barton Robinson]

If you go to conferences such as CMG (Computer Management Group), that 
has been a mainframe organization (meaning MVS or z/OS) since it 
started, our VM has never been represented, but VMWare now has many 
sessions.  It's depressing to see 80 people in entry level performance 
session for VMWare and no z/VM sessions on the agenda of a mainframe 
conference.
Early this year I was hearing ads for VMWare on the local radio station. 
I can only assume that VM is being outmarketed worldwide (or at least 
that VMWare is being marketed worldwide and VM is not marketed publicly 
at all).
It doesn't matter if our mousetrap is better if nobody is out there 
trying to get mindshare (marketing).  Preaching/grumbling to the choir 
doesn't change anything.


So when was the last time that any of you tried to get a case study 
published showing how great your accomplishments are using z/VM?  There 
are very few published stories (sorry games on "z" don't impress bean 
counters or executives, it's rather demeaning), we need REAL business 
case studies showing the value of "z/VM" to real companies.  If we get 
enough and executives do a google search on VM, maybe they will find 
something useful?




Bill Munson wrote:

Jim,

You are right, that makes me mad also.

IBM really blew it when they did not trade mark "VM" 


munson





Jim Elliott  
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 

03/30/2010 09:34 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System 


To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: ACM award







Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have
been a member since 1970) made the following award:



"VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for
bringing virtualization technology to modern computing
environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine
architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple
operating systems on their desktops."



Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part,
shouldn't we be insulted?


Chip:

Yes, we should be insulted. I remember being very upset the first
time I heard a VMware employee talk about how they had invented
the idea of server virtualization! Even on x86, VM386 was out
years before VMware (even if it failed in the market). I am still
upset every time I hear someone talk about "VM" when they mean
VMware. My reaction is, I work on the real VM!

Jim
(aka "Sir Jim the Evangelist")


*** IMPORTANT
NOTE*-- The opinions expressed in this
message and/or any attachments are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("BBH"). There is no guarantee that
this message is either private or confidential, and it may have
been altered by unauthorized sources without your or our knowledge.
Nothing in the message is capable or intended to create any legally
binding obligations on either party and it is not intended to
provide legal advice. BBH accepts no responsibility for loss or
damage from its use, including damage from virus.

Re: ACM award

[Bill Munson]

Jim,

You are right, that makes me mad also.

IBM really blew it when they did not trade mark "VM" 

munson





Jim Elliott  
Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
03/30/2010 09:34 PM
Please respond to
The IBM z/VM Operating System 


To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
Re: ACM award






> Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have
> been a member since 1970) made the following award:

> "VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for
> bringing virtualization technology to modern computing
> environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine
> architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple
> operating systems on their desktops."

> Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part,
> shouldn't we be insulted?

Chip:

Yes, we should be insulted. I remember being very upset the first
time I heard a VMware employee talk about how they had invented
the idea of server virtualization! Even on x86, VM386 was out
years before VMware (even if it failed in the market). I am still
upset every time I hear someone talk about "VM" when they mean
VMware. My reaction is, I work on the real VM!

Jim
(aka "Sir Jim the Evangelist")


*** IMPORTANT
NOTE*-- The opinions expressed in this
message and/or any attachments are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("BBH"). There is no guarantee that
this message is either private or confidential, and it may have
been altered by unauthorized sources without your or our knowledge.
Nothing in the message is capable or intended to create any legally
binding obligations on either party and it is not intended to
provide legal advice. BBH accepts no responsibility for loss or
damage from its use, including damage from virus.

Re: ACM award

[Kris Buelens]

Makes me remember a small support contract had to be created for a customer
of mine.  My boss forwarded some quickly written "tasks to perform" to an
admin to put it in a contract.
This admin carefully changed every "occurance of "VM" by the official term
"VMware" :-)

Since then I often respond just like Jim "the real VM", or I start directly
using "zeeVM"

2010/3/31 Jim Elliott 

> > Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have
> > been a member since 1970) made the following award:
>
> > "VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for
> > bringing virtualization technology to modern computing
> > environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine
> > architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple
> > operating systems on their desktops."
>
> > Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part,
> > shouldn't we be insulted?
>
> Chip:
>
> Yes, we should be insulted. I remember being very upset the first
> time I heard a VMware employee talk about how they had invented
> the idea of server virtualization! Even on x86, VM386 was out
> years before VMware (even if it failed in the market). I am still
> upset every time I hear someone talk about "VM" when they mean
> VMware. My reaction is, I work on the real VM!
>
> Jim
> (aka "Sir Jim the Evangelist")
>



-- 
Kris Buelens,
IBM Belgium, VM customer support

Re: ACM award

[Rob van der Heij]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:01 AM, Scott Rohling  wrote:
> You mean VMware isn't a clothing line??
>
> I sometimes spell it VMwear.   And like you, Jim - I'm quick to correct
> anyone who thinks about using just 'VM' to refer to their little upstart
> virtualization product.

Oh, now I see what they were talking about... I thought the youngsters
were unable to phrase a real question and asked "VM where?" so I
politely replied with "VM there!"  Sometimes with "VM everywhere!"
;-)

Re: ACM award

[Les Koehler]

I seem to remember, around 1981, seeing a demonstration of 
an experimental PROFS at Yorktown Heights. IBM had just 
opened the Special Planned Programs facility in Tampa to 
get back into the timeshare market and we were considering 
their PROFS as our offering. I even had a copy of PROFS 
source code at one point to see if we could make it fit in 
to our architecture. Don't recall if it was the product or 
Ykt version.


Les

David Boyes wrote:

On 3/30/10 10:34 PM, "David Boyes"  wrote:


Talk about someone that ought to know better Although I guess the out is
that it's a yearly award and the "commercial acceptance" clause is slick
enough to slide by. Then again, *how* many copies of PROFS were there? I
guess IBM can't give the prize to itself, though (for inventing the office
productivity suite).


Correction: *publicizing* the office productivity suite. Amoco (IIRC) gets
the invention prize for that little gem. 

Re: ACM award

[David Boyes]

On 3/30/10 10:34 PM, "David Boyes"  wrote:

> Talk about someone that ought to know better Although I guess the out is
> that it's a yearly award and the "commercial acceptance" clause is slick
> enough to slide by. Then again, *how* many copies of PROFS were there? I
> guess IBM can't give the prize to itself, though (for inventing the office
> productivity suite).

Correction: *publicizing* the office productivity suite. Amoco (IIRC) gets
the invention prize for that little gem. 

Re: ACM award

[David Boyes]

On 3/30/10 5:42 PM, "Chip Davis"  wrote:

> Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part, shouldn't we be
> insulted?

Oh, it gets better. Check this out (from the press release):

"Software System Award (sic) honors an institution or individual(s)
recognized for developing a software system that has had a lasting
influence, reflected in contributions to concepts, in commercial acceptance,
or both. This award carries a prize of $35,000. ***Financial support for the
award is provided by IBM  .***" (emphasis mine)

Talk about someone that ought to know better Although I guess the out is
that it's a yearly award and the "commercial acceptance" clause is slick
enough to slide by. Then again, *how* many copies of PROFS were there? I
guess IBM can't give the prize to itself, though (for inventing the office
productivity suite).

-- db

Re: ACM award

[David Boyes]

On 3/30/10 5:50 PM, "Mike Walter"  wrote:

> I can understand "modern computing organizations" being ignorant of
> historical "modern computing environments" such as z/VM -- but the ACM?

Doesn't surprise me at all. The ACM has gotten progressively more myopic wrt
to doing their homework on stuff like this even if the work was published in
*their* journals. I've been campaigning to replace some of the bozos at the
top with some people who actually have a historical background of what
actually happened in the computing field, and who RTFJs they publish rather
than blither about the crap they choose to publish in the current TACM.
An organization supposedly representing the computing industry that is
seriously debating whether *any* hardware course is necessary in the
standard curriculum?

Doomed, I tell you. Doomed.

Check out IEEE Computer. Much more active, and they're actually doing their
homework. Transactions on the History of Computing is a fascinating read,
and you can get it in paper or PDF form. IEEE also does a nifty trick with
RSS feeds to notify you of when new journals are available, click, and it's
on your desktop ready to read. Nice.

-- db

Re: ACM award

[Scott Rohling]

You mean VMware isn't a clothing line??

I sometimes spell it VMwear.   And like you, Jim - I'm quick to correct
anyone who thinks about using just 'VM' to refer to their little upstart
virtualization product.

Nothing against VMware itself - they've raised the bar in some ways for some
things in the virtualization world and that's always a 'good thing'.  I just
wish they'd picked different capitalized initials  :-(

Scott Rohling


On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Jim Elliott
wrote:

> > Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have
> > been a member since 1970) made the following award:
>
> > "VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for
> > bringing virtualization technology to modern computing
> > environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine
> > architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple
> > operating systems on their desktops."
>
> > Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part,
> > shouldn't we be insulted?
>
> Chip:
>
> Yes, we should be insulted. I remember being very upset the first
> time I heard a VMware employee talk about how they had invented
> the idea of server virtualization! Even on x86, VM386 was out
> years before VMware (even if it failed in the market). I am still
> upset every time I hear someone talk about "VM" when they mean
> VMware. My reaction is, I work on the real VM!
>
> Jim
> (aka "Sir Jim the Evangelist")
>

Re: ACM award

[Jim Elliott]

> Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have
> been a member since 1970) made the following award:

> "VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for
> bringing virtualization technology to modern computing
> environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine
> architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple
> operating systems on their desktops."

> Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part,
> shouldn't we be insulted?

Chip:

Yes, we should be insulted. I remember being very upset the first
time I heard a VMware employee talk about how they had invented
the idea of server virtualization! Even on x86, VM386 was out
years before VMware (even if it failed in the market). I am still
upset every time I hear someone talk about "VM" when they mean
VMware. My reaction is, I work on the real VM!

Jim
(aka "Sir Jim the Evangelist")

Re: ACM award

[Alan Altmark]

On Tuesday, 03/30/2010 at 06:28 EDT, Michael Harding/Oakland/i...@ibmus 
wrote:
> You caught the hedge too.  z/VM - or any mainframe OS - is probably 
considered 
> "classic" as opposed to "modern". 
> But truly modern today would be hand-helds,  phones or all-pervasive 
(built 
> into the surroundings), desktops are becoming mini-dinosaurs.

Ha.  I scoff in their general direction.  Just wait until the IBM 3273 
Model 42 Holographic Display Station comes out.  THEN they'll be sorry! It 
will without a doubt project in 7 colors, underscore, revvideo, and even 
blink.  But I have to admit that making it bigger than 24x80 is likely to 
make one crane one's neck a bit far.  And at our age that's not good.

(Word on the street is that if you have HD Mist on which to project it, 
the mandril pic using Programmed Symbols is awesome.  Totally.)

-- Chuckie

Re: ACM award

[Michael Harding]

You caught the hedge too.  z/VM - or any mainframe OS - is probably
considered "classic" as opposed to "modern".
But truly modern today would be hand-helds,  phones or all-pervasive (built
into the surroundings), desktops are becoming mini-dinosaurs.
--
Mike Harding
z/VM System Support

mhard...@us.ibm.com
mike.b.hard...@kp.org
mikehard...@mindless.com
(925) 926-3179 (w)
(925) 323-2070 (c)
IM: VMBearDad (AIM),  mbhcpcvt (Y!)


The IBM z/VM Operating System  wrote on 03/30/2010
02:50:36 PM:

> From: Mike Walter 
> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> Date: 03/30/2010 02:52 PM
> Subject: Re: ACM award
> Sent by: The IBM z/VM Operating System 
>
> 
>
> I can understand "modern computing organizations" being ignorant of
> historical "modern computing environments" such as z/VM -- but the ACM?
>
> Perhaps their selection committee was comprised of youngsters fresh out
of
> college, with no historical computing knowledge (or concern)??
> Double: 
>
> Mike Walter
> Hewitt Associates
> The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.
>
>
>
>
> "Chip Davis" 
>
> Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 
> 03/30/2010 04:42 PM
> Please respond to
> "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 
>
>
>
> To
> IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
> cc
>
> Subject
> ACM award
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have been a
> member
> since 1970) made the following award:
>
> "VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for bringing
> virtualization
> technology to modern computing environments, spurring a shift to
> virtual-machine
> architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple operating
> systems
> on their desktops."
>
> Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part, shouldn't we be
> insulted?
>
> -Chip-
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying
> documents may contain information that is confidential or otherwise
> protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of
> this message, or if this message has been addressed to you in error,
> please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete
> this message, including any attachments. Any dissemination,
> distribution or other use of the contents of this message by anyone
> other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All
> messages sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as
> permitted by applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance
> with our internal policies and to protect our business. E-mails are
> not secure and cannot be guaranteed to be error free as they can be
> intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or contain viruses. You are
> deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate with us by e-mail.

Re: ACM award

[Mike Walter]

I can understand "modern computing organizations" being ignorant of 
historical "modern computing environments" such as z/VM -- but the ACM? 

Perhaps their selection committee was comprised of youngsters fresh out of 
college, with no historical computing knowledge (or concern)??
Double: 

Mike Walter
Hewitt Associates
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, not my employer's.




"Chip Davis"  

Sent by: "The IBM z/VM Operating System" 
03/30/2010 04:42 PM
Please respond to
"The IBM z/VM Operating System" 



To
IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
cc

Subject
ACM award






Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have been a 
member 
since 1970) made the following award:

"VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for bringing 
virtualization 
technology to modern computing environments, spurring a shift to 
virtual-machine 
architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple operating 
systems 
on their desktops."

Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part, shouldn't we be 
insulted?

-Chip-






The information contained in this e-mail and any accompanying documents may 
contain information that is confidential or otherwise protected from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this 
message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender 
by reply e-mail and then delete this message, including any attachments. Any 
dissemination, distribution or other use of the contents of this message by 
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. All messages 
sent to and from this e-mail address may be monitored as permitted by 
applicable law and regulations to ensure compliance with our internal policies 
and to protect our business. E-mails are not secure and cannot be guaranteed to 
be error free as they can be intercepted, amended, lost or destroyed, or 
contain viruses. You are deemed to have accepted these risks if you communicate 
with us by e-mail. 

ACM award

[Chip Davis]

Today the Association for Computing Machinery (of which I have been a member 
since 1970) made the following award:


"VMware Workstation 1.0, the Software System Award, for bringing virtualization 
technology to modern computing environments, spurring a shift to virtual-machine 
architectures, and allowing users to efficiently run multiple operating systems 
on their desktops."


Aside from the "run multiple OSes on the desktop" part, shouldn't we be 
insulted?

-Chip-