Good News Everybody!
The new search engine is LIVE!
Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.
|
Leif wrote: >> processing capability that you purchased be any different ethically than >> buying 100 licenses of [insert your favorite software here] to run on 200 >> computers? <running for cover> > >wouldn't that same argument not also apply to Joe Pluta's method of >"re-engineering programs to remove the 5250 I/O" and get the same >interactive capability but without 5250? > >Presumably true "interactive" capability is measured in service >given to users interacting directly with the system. The interactive >tax should really be called a 5250 tax. Also I believe the difference lies in the way IBM represent the processing limit. AIUI they sell you a box with an interactive rating of X. They do not explicitly sell you a box with a rating of X+Y of which you are bound by licence not to use more than X. If I buy a car with a governor on it and a condition of sale is that I do not tamper with the governor then I am morally (at least) bound by that condition. If, however, I simply buy a car that has a stated top speed of X and attached to the engine I discover an interesting little gadget which I carefully adjust with a hammer (my car remember) and I find the top speed is now X+Y have I cheated the car manufacturer? Dave... ======================================================= The opinions expressed in this communication are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.