On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 2:19 PM Rob Berendt <robertowenberendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Patrik,
This is one of those cases in which you fervently believe in what you
believe in. I've explained what I can and to try to do any more is a waste
of my time and a waste of yours.
It's true, we're going to believe what we believe.
Based on my experience, I believe Patrik is correct on the fundamental
point that IBM's way of doing scheduled (and forced!) obsolescence is
purely a strategy for generating revenue.
I am not versed enough in the finer points to argue specifics. What I
can say is that the pace of technological advancement is usually much
faster than the pace of increased business needs. Of course there are
some large and fast-growing businesses that are going to gobble up
whatever IBM's latest and greatest is, just to keep pace with demand.
And if their business is growing that fast, keeping current is not
likely to be a financial burden for them.
But the vast, vast, VAST majority of businesses don't grow anywhere
near that fast; and at some point, they arrive at a PowerX machine
that is WAAAAY overpowered for what their business needs. Yet they are
strong-armed into buying PowerX+1 (or hanging on until PowerX+2)
anyway.
This doesn't sit well with me. As Patrik suggests, it's hard to
imagine any _technical_ reason why iNext couldn't run on Power9. For
sure, there are going to be occasional architecture changes, whether
hardware or software, that are significant enough to justify breaking
compatibility. But not with the regularity and pace at which IBM is
steamrolling along.
John Y.
midrange.com
