Re: Cheaper Servers?

On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Dare @ Work wrote:

> > > I think a portable OS400 can give Windoze a ride for its money.  Not to
> > > mention the stability of OS400 amongst many of its superior features.
> Don't
> > > quote me but we could break the monopoly of Microsoft on OS.
> >
> > This is ridiculous.  The same issues that keep linux and apple from
> > breaking MicroSoft's monopoly will keep OS/400 out of the portable market.
> > If by portable you mean "not on a server" then those issues are even more
> > potent against OS/400.  What are those issues?
>
> I'm not sure what you are getting at.  What issues are you reffering to?

I answered my question below (the paragraphs labeled 1 and 2 are the
answers to the question "What are those issues?").

> I don't understand what is ridiculous here but you could have an OS400
> client and a server version.

What is ridiculous is the idea that OS/400 on a portable would topple
microsoft's monopoly on PC operating environments (as defined by the
courts).

> > 1.  Microsoft marketing, monopoly power, and politics
> > These three are where the real power of the microsoft corporation
> > lies.  These three alone are very nearly enough to conquer any
> > technical reason that might be used to not use a microsoft
> > product.
>
> Are you saying IBM can not or does not have the monopoly power with OS400?

Is was referring to Microsoft's monopoly power, marketing and politics.  I
did not say anything regarding IBM's monopoly over OS/400.  It wouldn't
make sense to, since you can't really say that IBM has a monopoly in the
midrange server market.  They are the only ones who sell OS/400, but that
doesn't make it a monopoly.  Ford is the only company that makes the F150,
but they don't have a monopoly in mid sized trucks.

Microsoft does have a monopoly in PC operating systems.  That doesn't mean
that they make the only PC operating system, but that a court decided
that of all the PCs, Microsoft runs enough of them to make them
(microsoft) a monopoly.

> If IBM changes its marketing approach, it can be more powerful than M'soft.

Possibly.  But I don't think it matters how well they market OS/400,
people aren't going to put OS/400 on their portables because of reason
number 2.  I also believe that even if reason number 2 was not a problem
IBM could not overcome reason number 1.

> > 2.  People have needs on portables that OS/400 does not supply
> > Portables (both intel and powerpc) include features such as
> > plug and play, wireless networks, video (whether standard
> > SVGA, 3D, or TV), etc.  OS/400 cannot work with any of these
> > hardware issues.  People do need to listen to CDs, browse
> > the web, peruse news groups, write letters, do calculations,
> > etc. all of which cannot be done (currently) on OS/400.
>
> You must have not followed this thread from begininng.
> The achitecture doesn't have to be same as Intel and PowerPc and still
> provide these functions.

Yes, I have followed the thread.  The thread has discussed the possibility
of porting OS/400 to run on a powerPC-based portable architecture (like
the Mac).  The iSeries architecture is not the same as the Mac, though the
CPUs are somewhat similar.  So a non-trivial (and possibly feature
disabling) port would be required to avoid requiring the use of a
non-commodity and expensive architecture.

But look again at the list of things people with portables want to do.
Some of those are browse the web, 3D graphics, write letters, maybe do
some photo manipulation.  OS/400 has no support of any kind for SVGA
hardware.  It can run an X server in PASE, but that just displays on
another machine that does have support for SVGA hardware.  The things
people with portables want to do requires hardware that OS/400 does not
support *at all*.  But you might say, "Ah, but it does!"  Well read the
answer to your next point.

> Have you heard of LPAR? If yes what is your point about what people can not
> do on the 400.

Yes, I have heard of LPAR.  LPAR allows you to run a possibly different OS
on the same hardware as the host OS/400.  That means that you are *not*
running OS/400 to do those tasks which run under the LPAR.  You are
running something else.  Why would anyone ever fill up their portable with
OS/400 if everything they do runs under a different OS anyway?  Why not
just install that other OS?

> Is not the point we are making here that IBM will have to make these
> features available?

IBM already has these features available:  run linux or windows.

> > The only people who want OS/400 on a portable are people who already have
> > OS/400 on a server.  People who need the abilities of OS/400 aren't going
> > to need them on a portable.  Uptime?  Who cares?  A portable is shut off
> > all the time anyway.  Stability?  Who cares?  Same reason.  No SVGA?  Are
> > you kidding me?  You want that on a portable?
>
> Which people are you talking about? Is this a scientific survey you did and
> where is your data?

The people I am talking about is clearly stated, "The only people who want
OS/400 on a portable are people who already have OS/400 on a server".
That could be iSeries developers, iSeries salesmen, iSeries advocates,
etc.  These same people pretty much already have access to OS/400 on a
server somewhere.  I am not saying that these people wouldn't want OS/400
on their portable (indeed this list shows that the opposite is true).  I
am saying that people who need OS/400 strengths don't need them on a
portable, but want them on a server.  Conversely, people who have
portables by and large don't need OS/400's strengths.

> You will be surprise how much Uptime and stability will play in today's
> computing if there is a choice out there.

People with portables don't care about uptime - they turn them off
everyday!  Uptime and stability are largely unimportant to people with
portables since they don't keep them turned on for very long.

There is choice out there.  It has been shown that linux and *BSD achieve
the same kinds of uptime and stability as OS/400, yet linux has had
surprisingly little market penetration into the market space monopolized
by Microsoft, i.e. the portable (laptops and PCs) market space.  Linux
already has all the hardware support needed.  It already has all the
applications needed.  Yet it hasn't toppled microsoft's monopoly.  Why
not?  The answer is partially because of reason 1 that I gave.  This has
been proven in the antitrust trial by Dell's testimony:  Microsoft forced
Dell to discontinue selling machines with non-Microsoft operating systems.

> > Even if issue #2 was not a problem, issue #1 still is.  As far as meeting
> > the needs of portable users, linux kicks all over OS/400's butt yet you
> > don't see linux breaking microsoft's monopoly (yet - despite my best
> > efforts).
>
> What's your point? Linux, Windoze and OS400 are not the same flavor.

And neither is OS/400 and windows.

> > Beyond the small scope of this list, nobody wants OS/400 on their
> > portables.  Use the right tool for the right job.  OS/400 on a portable is
> > the wrong tool.  You don't run database servers on portables.
>
> I think you're a bit narrow minded here buddy.

Possibly.  Someone could have told Linus Torvalds that people don't run
unix on 386's and that didn't stop him, so I could be wrong.  And maybe
this will motivate you to be the next Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman.
If so that would be awesome.

James Rich
james@eaerich.com