On Sep 23, 2007, at 10:26 PM, Dean Kent wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas F. Geissbuehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: zH/OS (z/OS on Hercules for personal use only)
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:54:28 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't know what you're smoking; maybe you could pass it around?
Ted, if I would have written more clearly you would have
understood. We
must
make a case to IBM senior managers who "know Microsoft's software
at least
1'000 times better than IBM's own (software)" and can't comprehend
why and
how a zH/OS laptop in our hands could promote IBM business.
I am probably wrong here, but I suspect that the problem with IBM and
Fundamental has to do with the entire PSI issue. It seems to me
that PSI
was essentially aiming to pull the rug out from under IBM's z/OS
market by
allowing apps to run without needing the OS.
Huh???? You still need Z/os (running on Hercules ) to run z/os.
Unless I am totally missing you.
In order to quash that, IBM
had to claim emulation violated their IP, and damages their
business. This,
in turn, requires that they shut down *all* emulation products that
are not
IBM products. Once the lawsuit is settled, we will see what happens.
Again - I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me (even if I don't
like
it).
Regards,
Dean
You still need to have a license for z/os even if its a partner
agreement.
I personally don't think IBM would loose any business over this. It
might be .0000001 percent and not worth the legal effort to quash
anyone. It is beginning (to me) to sound like the Bush administration
and "security" mentality that has the grip of IBM.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
