> I'm sure Phil would know more, but he's probably too busy fiddling with his > Audi to care much.
I've been booked for a magazine photo-shoot on Monday - "Practical Classics" - to illustrate a how-to article about servicing AUdi fuel injection systems. When it's published, I'll post the URI so you can admire my manly figure. Just bought a new T-shirt specially. I'm not really that up to speed on the current status, largely because a lot of the discussions have been between FSI (who are as tight as a duck's posterior sphincter when it comes to discussing their relationships) and a very few people at IBM who are probably more ashamed about discussing their activities that anything else. And trying to find out how Google works is as much fun as Assembler I/O programming back in the 1960s - nothing ever works like it's supposed to, and getting ahead of the game is fun. I knew there was a contract expiry due, but I believed it was between FSI and T3. With all the noise T3 has been making about the PSI "product", you can't blame FSI for being a little cautious about renewing an agreement with the world-exclusive marketing arm of a competitor. There are some very technical issues about intellectual property that I, for one, am glad I'm not involved in. I'm told that T3 is planning a launch of the PSI "product" and has invited its PWD customers - not a way to improve relations with your other supplier. Or IBM, for that matter. I do have a fragmentary transciript of the exact words an IBM executive used when referring to PSI's chances of getting software licenses. I also know that PSI has a corporate lawyer with a LOT of experience in precisely this sector. I await developments. I know Steve will be very upset with me (but what's new about that) but my first take is that he's poisoned his FSI relationship with his gung ho attitude to PSI, and now he's discovered that the PSI "product" is no such thing. I've always thought the FSI/IBM intellectual property agreements were of unspecified length and mutual - FSI has a few patents, too - and I can't see that an expiry would be expected. I don't think the agreements are as comprehensive as some people would like, but that's a horse with different feathers. I understand from a couple of sources that PWD AD/CD renewals are currently running below 70%. This saddens me because it's another "critical mass" issue and I fear the platform is rapidly approaching that in a number of ways. Words fail me when it comes to IBM's refusal to sanction commercial 64-bit operation under FLEX-ES. This is at one time the STUPIDEST and most predatory action IBM has taken since 1956. It is incredibly, cretinously dumb and will lead to the zSeries market collapsing several years before it would otherwise do so. Given the huge profit margins on zSeries software, it would IMO be appropriate for stockholders to ask for a review of this strategy before it's too late - if it isn't already. We now have the situation where ISVs are developing applications that mandate DB2 V8 and their customers are unable to run it because their FLEX-ES system only supports ARCHLVL=2 in 31-bit mode. So they buy a Superdome. How ANYONE can maintain that IBM does what its customers want in this situation is really way beyond me. Can no one do TCO calculations at IBM any more? ´Has the skill evaporated? You can make a zBox cheap, and its software, but you still need external peripherals - cost, power and service - which you get thrown in with a FLEX-ES solution. Internally emulated DASD are a damn sight faster, too. Have any of them compared the cost/GB between old iron and a state of the art PC server? And things like Faketape and printer emulation have huge benefits for small users. All things a big, dumb piece of iron can't do. The world has moved on. But I understand the HMC got a new GUI recently, so that's all right. I'm told that one senior zSeries executive "would be happy with an installed base loss around 5% a year". It's actually quite a bit more than that now - but can you even IMAGINE what Thomas Watson would have said to a salesman who thought a declining base - or even a static one - in some way acceptable? -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.co.uk +44 7833 654 800 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
