Re: Linux (see smaller server Iseries)

(moved from midrange-l)

Brad:

I have to start by pointing out that the comments you originally replied to 
were not about defending IBM's actions. For me, it started with "Consider how 
IBM prices interactive features separately on the iSeries.  The higher price 
has little to do with cost."

My reply to that came from thinking that points raised in a dialogue in a 
technical forum should be either verifiable or labelled as opinion. The second 
quoted sentence was worded as a fact and I'm very interested in seeing how it 
could be verified.

I suspect the vast majority of list subscribers feel the same since it's a hot 
issue; but that's mostly irrelevant because it's the principle of verifiability 
that's the point, not the *fact* of pricing. The question I raised is whether 
or not anyone among us knows how the price relates to cost.

So far, the answer is 'No.'

more below...

On Mon, 28 January 2002, "Brad Jensen" wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <thomas@inorbit.com>
> > I realize this is a devil's advocate position, but I don't want
> it to go unspoken,
> > especially if someone can contribute a solid fact.
>
> Since you label everything a guess, I have to wonder what isn't a
> guess. What would you accept as absolute, incontrovertible fact?
> What is your standard of proof?

Anything solid would be useful. For example, we've seen reports that layoffs 
have happened in Rochester over recent years. Usually we also hear that only a 
small percentage will affect OS/400 or iSeries development directly, but there 
are always a few. Besides layoffs, there are retirements and job changes to 
other companies. Some of those positions have almost certainly been from OS/400 
work management and related areas. (If not, then there's clearly little 
personnel budget reduction and costs possibly have not decreased.)

Though confidentiality agreements probably exist, a five-year restriction would 
likely be an upper limit. Yet I cannot recall a single comment from such a 
source that would support the idea that the revenues from interactive features 
is unreasonable in terms of what it costs IBM. I haven't seen even general 
comments such as "The number of related developers was cut by a third." If any 
such reliable statements have been made, I'm asking for references.

Surely somebody out there in M-L list-land used to work in Rochester or works 
with somebody who used to work there. I just want to hear something solid for a 
change.

I didn't think that was such an outlandish position and I'm surprised at how 
you seemed to take it. I mean, "you label everything a guess"? Isn't that a 
little overboard? I speak to a single issue and you see it as "everything"? I 
ask for something beyond educated guesswork and you take it as looking for 
"absolute, incontrovertible fact"? C'mon, there ought to be a reliable hint 
SOMEplace, don't you think?

> It seems to me that we need to make our deciusions about it in the
> absence of what you call a solid fact, since you haven't offered
> any likely way to get those facts.

But the discussion wasn't about making decisions about interactive features; it 
was about what was driving the price difference for the Linux-only servers. 
Market potential was given as a proposed reason and the 'fact' that interactive 
price had little to do with cost was given as if it were a supporting point.

I had no problem with Nathan's given reason -- it was reasonable and I don't 
disagree; but I objected to the choice of support for the reasoning. Had that 
been presented even as a probability, I don't think I would have commented at 
all.

> You are saying more about your own preferences for a foundation
> for decisions making,

Yes, you're saying it better than I did...

>  rather than anything about the situation
> itself.

... I wasn't commenting on the 'situation', by which I assume you mean IBM's 
pricing practices for interactive capacity. That's because that wasn't what the 
discussion was about.

Tom Liotta

--
Tom Liotta
The PowerTech Group, Inc.
19426 68th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032
Phone  253-872-7788
Fax  253-872-7904
http://www.400Security.com


___________________________________________________
The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe
 Better!  Faster! More Powerful!
 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now!
 http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/