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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
)
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger Bowler
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:53 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:35:38 -, Phil Payne wrote:
SNIP
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?).
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
-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
-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
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger Bowler
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 9:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
SNIP
Looks like PSI have already spotted this angle: see
No, I'm going for the popcorn franchise for all those people watching
this play out.
Jon
snip
I think it is time to 'get tough' on this issue of
laptop mainframes. In the letter to Sam Palmisano
we should threaten a mass migration of mainframe
professionals over to 'Waffle Dinges.' (Will
Will you serve the popcorn with Dinges?
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:06:28 -0500, Jon Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm going for the popcorn franchise for all those people watching
this play out.
Jon
snip
I think it is time to 'get tough' on this issue of
laptop mainframes. In the letter to
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
---snip--
I have heard this. I have heard likewise that IBM performed a sweep
of their facilities and all employees found running z/OS on Hercules
illegally were provided copies of Flex. Alll unsubstantiatable rumors.
I would think in the current
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
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
-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
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
-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
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.
, 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
: 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
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
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
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU wrote on 12/05/2007
09:56:36 AM:
even before 811 documents were published we had put together a project
to turn out a 16-way smp processor on a very aggresive delivery
schedule. it was going great guns until it came to the attention of the
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
---snip---
In my opinion, what makes IBM code safe in terms Auditing risk, is the
fact that only IBM labs work on it. You need a really P'd-off IBMer to
plant a Trojan in the code, and a few P'd-off testers to miss it during
testing. So I would not be in
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
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
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
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
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
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...
At 12/3/2007 05:04 PM, Dave Kopischke wrote:
With all due respect, I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you
or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is
IBM's property and they are entitled to sell it or allow access to
it or give it away in any way they see fit. And
It is another OS/2 debacle, isn't it? Best OS at the time, and we had
to put up with a decade of Windows 98 etc before they got a relatively
stable OS with Win 2k etc.
All because of money... see next email.
Clement Clarke
David Cole wrote:
At 12/3/2007 05:04 PM, Dave Kopischke wrote:
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
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to bit.listserv.ibm-main,alt.folklore.computers as well.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Bowler) writes:
IBM worked long and hard over many years to successfully establish
S/360 and its successors as *the* standard computer
motivated by the growth in the plug-compatible controller business ...
discussed in more detail in this recent post
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007r.html#74 System 360 EBCDIC vs. ASCII
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007t.html#68 T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe
Monopoly
i wasn't exactly
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
-
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
-
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
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
] 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
How long did Amdahl last?
Until 64-bit, like HDS.
Even though IBM was just open (as required) with the z/Arch, both companies
couldn't afford the RD.
But, Amdahl really went down the tubes, while HDS still (at least) sells disk
for the mainframe.
I remember the last time I talked to an Amdahl
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
-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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Van Dalsen, Herbie
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 11:55 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
SNIP
Well here is my $0.05 worth...
How long did
] 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
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
-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.
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
