Re: open source. was Closed system (was: PC connection via twinax ?)

-----Original Message-----
From: Reeve Fritchman <reeve@ltl400.com>
To: midrange-l@midrange.com <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: open source. was Closed system (was: PC connection via twinax
?)


>
>I believe that real progress in software comes from small focused groups
>(this would be IBM'ers) and not from a swarm of 3rd-party propeller-heads
>bellyaching about V3 internals.  We need to use a laser, not 10,000 votive
>candles, in the development effort.  If you think IBM's going to march in
>like Microsoft and buy your "make V3R2 better" company, you're dreaming.
If
>you think IBM's going to fly you in on a G-5 to get the benefit of your
V3R2
>CISC experience even as they're planning >>V5, you're hallucinating.  What
>direct (revenue, profits) IBM business interest would be served by (even
>old) open source?


Easy Reeve. Dont project your dreams on my motives.

You are right about pre risc not being not worth the commercial effort. So
set the line at
v4r1.

Any shop still running v4r1 or prior is unlikely to buy a new iseries.  And
if they do, it will be a low margin low end system. So ibm does not loss
much if
any revenue.

Patent protection? I would not worry about ibm not being protected by
patents.

And if nothing comes of it as you predict, there is no loss either.

If it does have some success, ibm again benefits by access to an expanded
pool of potential customers for v5+ and its newest hardware.

I am proposing open source, not free source. Give the slumping asian
hardware producers a new market to invest in. Maybe you will get the iseries
on a board. You are not going to get it from ibm.

Steve Richter