RE: open source. was Closed system (was: PC connection via twinax ?)

Kinda harsh!  Economics has nothing to do with this: it's marketing.  IBM
doesn't want those old boxes revitalized; regardless of the customer's
application development requirements, IBM wants high maintenance costs to
force customers to move to new iBoxes (selling new boxes is IBM's business).
IBM is not in the business of supporting its aftermarket players, and a
considerable amount of IBM's intellectual property must be protected by
secrecy because it's not patentable.

I disagree with "Roch needs a lot of help..."  What Rochester needs is fewer
IBM shackles!  There are plenty of very smart and creative people there and
lots of great stuff could come out of the labs there (Toronto too).  But IBM
has to manage its overall business, including the pSeries and zSeries.  I'll
bet you a buck we could have an iSeries-on-a-planar-board if IBM wanted
it...it's just not part of the Big Blue Plan.

I believe that real progress in software comes from small focused groups
(this would be IBM'ers) and not from a swarm of 3rd-party propeller-heads
bellyaching about V3 internals.  We need to use a laser, not 10,000 votive
candles, in the development effort.  If you think IBM's going to march in
like Microsoft and buy your "make V3R2 better" company, you're dreaming.  If
you think IBM's going to fly you in on a G-5 to get the benefit of your V3R2
CISC experience even as they're planning >>V5, you're hallucinating.  What
direct (revenue, profits) IBM business interest would be served by (even
old) open source?

While I dislike most generalizations, I think you'll find a remarkably high
percentage of revolutionary and innovative code has come from individuals.
VisiCalc, OS/400, Lotus Notes, Synon, Apple, and (this one really hurts)
Linux are examples that spring to mind...dare I forget MS-DOS?

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On
Behalf Of James W. Kilgore
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 8:51 AM
To: midrange-l@midrange.com
Subject: Re: open source. was Closed system (was: PC connection via twinax
?)

Steve,

Your thinking is flawed.  May I suggest some classes in economics?

Steve Richter wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Svalgaard <leif@leif.org>
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com <midrange-l@midrange.com>
> Date: Sunday, August 19, 2001 10:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Closed system (was: PC connection via twinax ?)
>
> >I can imagine a world (not to come to pass though) where
> >IBM or a BP or a customer would propose a change, maybe
> >even produce some code. The change and the code would
> >be reviewed by the community, the bugs would be flushed
> >out, improvements would be suggested, etc, and the platform
> >would move forward as IBM takes advantage of the talent
> >and requirements of the community.
>
> Open source on the iseries also has to be open hardware specs.
>
> As much as what is good in the iseries is the result of it being a closed
> system, we have to face facts. To compete in the years to come, roch needs
a
> lot of help to bring innovative enhancements to the system.
>
> A painless way to start toward open source that does not hurt ibm's cfint
> cash cow: Open source the pre rls 4 hardware and software.
>
> Ibm does not lose any sales, esp over the next year or two.
>
> System integrity is not compromised since v5 is much diff than v3.
>
> 3rd party hardware vendors would have a new market re upgrading the v3
> hardware.
>
> The revitalized hardware provides a new market for iseries software
vendors.
> ( and pgmrs )
>
> Could provide some real juice to the platform.
>
> Steve Richter
>
_______________________________________________
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com