RE: [MI400] Re: "TigerTools Says It Can Remove OS/400 Governors"

[Jim Langston <jlangston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting point, Bill.  I haven't read the licensing agreement,
but it seems to me that IBM doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If I buy a car that can go 100 mph, and I slap a new engine in that
can go 200 mph, the car dealer doesn't have a thing to say about it,
I bought it, I can do what I want with it.

Now, if I leased this car from Rent-A-Wreck, I couldn't rightfully
make any modifications to their car, not mine.

If the system we have is owned by us (not sure if it is or not) IBM
hasn't a thing to say about how we actually use the hardware.  We
could use it for a boat anchor for all they could say about it.

The only issue I could see would be with the software side.  If we
are licensing OS/400 to run on a P10, and pay a certain price for that
rather than the higher price for a P20, and I kick up the interactive
to effectively be a P20 machine, I could see IBM saying we had to pay
more for the O/S (although I don't agree with tier based software
pricing, that is how it is licensed and how we buy it).

Which brings up additional software issues.  Other software we license
for our system we license for a P10 model.  Would we be legally, if
not morally, responsible for paying the additional licensing fees?

Regards,

Jim Langston

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill [mailto:bubbzbill@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:43 AM
To: mi400@midrange.com
Subject: Re: [MI400] Re: "TigerTools Says It Can Remove OS/400
Governors"


Ed,  first off, can you make the distinction here between whether you are
responding as Ed Fishel who happens to work for IBM and Ed Fishel
responding -for- IBM.

> IBM agreements prohibit customers from activating, or allowing a third
> party product to activate, built in capacity without authorization from
and
> payment to IBM.

Do you really mean "activate beyond the purchased capacity"?

Will IBM be changing this document:
http://www-912.ibm.com/s_dir/slkbase.nsf/1ac66549a21402188625680b0002037e/a1
5fc5
71478b82018625676900555dc1?OpenDocument

To quote one of the paragraphs:
"On a server or custom server model, there are two CPW values. The larger
value
represents the maximum workload the model could support if the workload were
entirely client/server (for example, no interactive components). The smaller
CPW
value represents the maximum workload the model could support if the
workload
were entirely interactive. These values are not additive. Interactive
processing
reduces the client/server processing capability of the system."

I notice the usage of the word "could" which tends to reinforce IBM's prior
stance that the limitation on interactive CPW was a hardware issue, thus the
need for an Interactive processor card to help the server service
interactive
jobs.  IBM has always maintained previously that CFINT was NOT a governor
but a
technical necessity to give a server model the ability to service an
interactive
workload.

Has the Fast400 program now forced IBM to publicly admit that the
interactive
CPW is limited by an artifical governor which can be officially raised only
by
the purchase of a hardware card that really doesn't do any processing but
tells
the system the new interactive workload knee?

Bill