Re: The status quo and the future...

Reeve,

>Rick, you have many valid points.
>
>RPG is not Python.  If IBM wants to port Python to the iSeries, fine.  But
>what's the point of making RPG into something it's not?  That's why there
>are multiple languages in the first place.  It's smart business to
preserve
>the status quo; that allows a well-defined upgrade path (for IBM and for
>customers) and reduces exposure to the situations we encountered when both
>the System/38 and AS/400 were announced.  But there may be some new
concepts
>in new languages that would be useful in RPG.  We don't want two
homogenized
>languages (we already have PL/I).

not any more we don't :)

>Those legacy applications...they're ours!  We don't want them to end up in
>the street because some anonymous IBM marketing whiz decided RPG is bad.
>
>And customers don't want their upgrade path to be blocked by a
>labor-intensive software engineering effort; they want another painless
>migration, like CISC-to-RISC.  This is what we expect from IBM; when IBM
>focuses, it delivers.

Marketing (I hope) doesn't decide how rpg looks or works.  IBM has never
given us reason to believe they will leave us behind, and I don't think
they will.  What was the last labor intensive re-engineering effort they
MADE us take?   The answer is:

>The iSeries isn't a growth industry today because IBM coasted too long:
>iSeries profits funded lots of other IBM ventures.   My opinion is that
the
>development of System/36 mode diverted a stupendous amount of AS/400
>resources away from progress and towards compatibility.  While IBM fiddled
>with SPCENV(*S36),

I'm confused - which side of the argument are you on?   You talk of an
needing an upgrade path, but degrade s36e?   how would you have felt if you
had just paid a BP a half million to write your custom MRP app, just before
they announced the 400 - and they DIDN'T have 36e?  where's YOUR upgrade
path?  I think you'd be pretty pissed.

As it was, IBM gave us nearly 10 years (8 longer than they wanted to) to
migrate from the s/36.  They spent untold millions on upgrading SSP to run
on as/400 hardware, kept it alive for way longer than they wanted to.  All
to keep the existing customer base happy.

>Microsoft won the hearts of new programmers by grabbing
>the Internet initiative;

Microsoft was SO far behind the ball on the internet.  They had to spend
billions to catch up, then had to give away the fruits of thier spending
(IE) to get market share.   Microsoft hasn't won anyone's hearts - only
thier pocketbooks.

>the low entrance cost of development systems didn't
>hurt either.  But the new 250's offer hope on the low end...thanks, IBM!

>IBM *wants* the iSeries to be a growth industry, and the target customer
is
>anybody with a room full of servers and network administrators.  When you
>examine the iSeries announcements over the last few years, stand back or
>you'll get clocked by the investment pendulum swinging to the hardware
side,
>with a special emphasis on server technology; we're just starting to see
>some results on the software/application development tools side with V5R1
>(suffering from a very low acceptance rate, according to Bob Cozzi).
>
>Here's a provocative thought: the HP-Compaq merger might be based
partially
>on the realization that successfully moving the iSeries into the server
>market would give IBM a monstrous competitive advantage over every other
>server manufacturer by virtue of the coverage and overlap of the xSeries,
>iSeries, and zSeries.

Do you mean HP-Compaq are giving up the server market or trying to catch
up?  Neither did servers well before.   They don't do desktops well either.
now instead of having two large companys that didn't do wintel well we'll
have one monster that doesn't do wintel well.  They might as well just
concentrate on printers ;P

>Look at how many users rely on SEU and SDA...both > 20 years old.  Don't
>believe me: look at the surveys Bob Cozzi has conducted and you'll see how
>slowly we as a group are moving.

I rely on seu and sda.

>After seeing SEU and SDA, no IT student on
>the planet will believe the iSeries is the most advanced server in the
>market.  The iSeries suffers from a perception problem and that's why
there
>are so many complaints about iSeries marketing.

what tools ARE dominating?  From what i've heard, IBMs tools are leading
edge, at least in technology - what does Microsoft have?  C++? VB?  not
particulary cutting edge.  .Net?  the jury's still way out.

>LPAR has some usefulness across a wide spectrum of users but I admit to
>being mystified with Linux, unless it's a "Me too" from IBM to the
industry.

linux is the fastest growing yada, yada...  0% to 1% market share is a 'big
jump', but it does represent our best hope of reducing our dependance on
MS.

>There is one possibility for using Linux productively and this is the best
>strategic option for IBM: a new set of development tools running
exclusively
>in Linux on both the PC and iSeries platforms.

I would hope ibm is doing just that.  If not, what's the point?

>I don't agree with your belief that IBM executives answer to the
>shareholders.  In fact, they report (ultimately) to the Board of Directors
>which in turn has to deal with its bosses: securities analysts.

same thing.  securities analysts answer to shareholders.  you just added a
few layers.

>Shareholders are so far down the line they're over the horizon.  Every
>public company in America is constrained by the requirement to report
>quarterly results.  All you need to do is watch stock prices jump when
>quarterly earning are announced: the turmoil in prices is almost always
due
>to some hair-triggered analyst trying to get out in front of the market
when
>a company is a penny ahead or behind of expectations.  In the big picture,
>IBM has a tough job of triangulating between customers, competitors, and
>analysts.

But, if profits are stagnant (even if they are high), so is the stock
price.  IBM has to keep up the appearance that they are 'moving ahead'.  If
not, they look like they are dropping back.

>It's this reality that forced IBM to drop OS/2.  Who knows where Linux
would
>be today if we had our choice of OS/2 or Windows to run out desktops?

IBM dropped OS/2 because they were throwing good money after bad.  They
were spending billions on r&d on a product that was losing market share
rather than gaining.  They had to cut thier losses.  It WAS superior to
windows, but that didn't matter.  MS had won and IBM new it.

IBM put a lot of thier eggs into the java basket a few years ago.  it
didn't take off like they wanted, even though the product was superior.
Now they're putting a ton of eggs into the linux basket.  will it work?
don't know - but they gotta try.  the alternative is stagnation.