× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



On Friday 09 November 2001 01:14 pm, Nathan M. Andelin wrote:

> IBM is "licensing some machines"?  But licensing is the domain of
software,
> not hardware.  If IBM were to classify "Interactive Features" as software,
> then the licensing point would make sense.  In a hardware context, it
> doesn't.

No, I would say that licensing is more a domain of customer/provider
contract. But taking it in the context you prefer, it would seem that the
limitation does come as a result of the hardware/software combination
right? So an easy, license free method of going around this limitation is
to simply use the hardware with a different operating system. It would be
against your license to modify OS/400 for this purpose, but you could
simply use Linux for your processing or some such, right?

> The problem is that IBM classifies "Interactive Features" as hardware.
> Installs a dummy card to support that notion.  Complains that Fast400
offers
> "unpurchased capacity".
>
> If that line of thinking were taken to the next level, then any software
> installed that was more efficient than an OS/400 alternative, should be
> classified as offering unpurchased capacity.  Sounds like illogical
nonsense
> to me!

"That line of thinking" seems to be IBM evaluation of their licensing
agreement with their customer. When you take it "to the next level" you are
simply projecting your view of the licensing practice, rather than
evaluating IBM's true reasons for applying the license restriction.

If IBM, as part of their customer/provider relationship offered an OS
upgrade that improved the performance of the contracted machine, I'm sure
it would be because they were willing to contract for its use.

> In my opinion, hardware capacity is defined primarily by physical
> attributes.  In contrast, Interactive Features are defined by OS/400.  To
> attempt to blur the difference is a big mistake.

But CPW would be a measure of workload capability, a combination of
software/hardware performance, right? So it would only seem to apply to a
customer who wishes to license IBM's hardware/software combination which is
marketed as the iSeries.

> Nathan M. Andelin
> www.relational-data.com

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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.