Re: "The Myth of Openness" - ENT magazine and the AS/400

Chuck wrote:
>ALL due respect Scott buddy, but give the WHOLE quote ;-)
>
>"What did matter was that IBM galvanized an enormous number of third-party
>developers who put real meaning in the AS/400 acronym, which stands for
>Application System. It was the third parties and their solutions that,
along with
>IBM, were responsible for the AS/400

Æs appeal. Collectively, they drove
many of
>the AS/400

Æs developments during its 12-year history, and they did so by
>reflecting the needs and desires of their customers. If that isn't open in
spirit
>and actual deed, I don

Æt know what is."
>
>You KNOW is AS/400 folks - diss our AS/400 and will come after you <BG> -
that's
>what I was headed to, but read the above quote <BG> !!
>
>Chuck
>
>Sclind2@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >From the current issue of ENT magazine:
>>
>> "Think back to what may be the single-most successful, business-critical
>> computer system ever made. I

Æm talking about the IBM AS/400. In
actuality, it
>> was as non-open as a system can get. It was, and is, a wholly
proprietary
>> hardware and software combination controlled by IBM. That fact never
mattered
>> to the hundreds of thousands of AS/400 buyers around the world".
>>
>> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?ID=1199945231PM
>>

This is my personal opinion and should not be interpreted as representing
those
of my employer.

It should be noted that the reference to the AS/400 is really secondary in
the editorial,
which tries to justify "defacto" standards over "open" standards.
Certainly, in the early
days of the AS/400, the last word you'd use to describe it would be "open".
However,
for the last seven years or so, the thing that kept the 400 going strong
was compatibility
with open standards, such as the internet protocols.  Without the IP, there
would be no
internet.  Instead, there might be widespread use of some proprietary
system
controlled by a monopoly that gets a cut on every packet sent through the
network.

The editorial is trying to justify Microsofts practice of flaunting
established, open
standards (that they have no control over) in favor of their own
proprietary products.
This should come as no surprise since Windows NT is under a great deal of
pressure
from the ultimate in openness: Linux.  As Linux venders gear up to handle
the demand
for products based on the new Linux 2.2.0 kernel, you can expect the MS
public
relations machine to crank up the FUD against it.

BTW, I tend to be suspicious of any publication that calls itself
"independent".

Cheers!  Hans