After reading much of the posts recently about IBM and their legal actions, I wanted to approach this whole discussion from a different perspective.
I don't know how many will agree with these opinions and perceptions, but I will put them out there anyway. I have made my living for over 30 years off the use of IBM mainframes. I worked on everything from the 1401/1410 to the current z/Series mainframes. I have no complaints and wouldn't change a thing as far as a career choice. However, I am not ready to retire and in fact would like to work as long as I am physically able. I find working on mainframes is a well-developed skill and makes it easier for me to do work once I find it. Personally I am in favor of expanding the mainframe marketplace and making it as big as possible. I have been to IBM road shows, the last one in June of this year, where IBM proudly proclaimed that the mainframe dinosaur was not dead, but rather was alive and well and was the best price to performance computing platform available today. They told me to believe them when they said they were not giving up on the mainframe and were heavily investing in this technology so that it would be around forever - or at least a long time to come. So I can not understand what IBM is doing by preventing PSI from marketing a Plug Compatible Mainframe. Someone help me figure out what is going on here. IBM has clearly decided years ago that they were not going to deal with PSI while at the same time dealing with and making possible the FLEX alternative to actual z/Series hardware. Is IBM afraid that PSI will take away revenue from the z/Series hardware division of IBM? If they established licenses with PSI it would seem to me that IBM would be getting a cut of every PSI sale and the loss of revenue would be mitigated at least if not eliminated. In addition, PSI has not created an alternative to z/OS. They are not marketing the software that runs on these mainframes. IBM will still provide that license and will reap increased revenue from the software. Software margins are significantly higher than hardware margins. Anybody on this list can look at their bill for z/OS on a monthly basis and realize that. Why would IBM take such a different approach now than earlier when they dealt with these same people at AMDAHL about the creation of a PCM? It appears to me that IBM clearly did not want this company to get as far as they did and is intent on putting them out of business. This may not seem like such a big deal to many, but when you look at the IBM tools division and their intent there to own the tools marketplace and take out the competition there - CA, Compuware, BMC and others - you have to wonder what will happen to costs when IBM is the only vendor providing hardware and software for the mainframe. And after all that is the definition of a monopoly. I have nothing against IBM, I like a lot of people that work there and I believe that the mainframe platform has software that is excellent - head and shoulders above anything out there in the marketplace. I just want to keep on doing what I do best and I don't want the mainframe to go away. My concern is that companies will have one more reason to move off the mainframe if there is no competition where that platform is concerned. IBM has every right to defend their patents from infringement. However, I just wonder why it ever came to this and what IBM hopes to get out of all of this. Tom Moulder TREX Associates, Inc. 9728 Delmonico Dr. Keller, Tx. 76248-9559 +1 817 741-5549 Office +1 817 741-5548 Fax +1 682 558-6527 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.t-rex-associates.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
