At 12/3/2007 05:04 PM, Dave Kopischke wrote:
With all due respect, I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you
or any of us to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is
IBM's property and they are entitled to sell it or allow access to
it or give it away in any way they see fit. And that includes
protecting it in any manner and with whatever ferocity they feel appropriate.
WADR (BTW, I hate that phrase...) WADR: I don't believe I said
anything at all about IBM "having an obligation...". Of course they
don't. I was only describing the current circumstances as I see them.
But even though I understand that IBM does not have an "obligation",
I don't therefore believe that we, who are adversely affected by this
non-obligation, should simply stand silently by and let this
deterioration of our community just happen.
Like most of what happens in this world, this is just a struggle
between competing interests, and IBM is just one player in this
struggle. Unfortunately, the struggle is somewhat out of balance.
Especially if we just stand by and let it happen. Also unfortunately,
in this struggle the major power is too short-term goal bound to see
the long range benefits of broadening this community instead of
strangling it. (And other large powers are too complacent to help out.)
Still, those of us who are directly affected have options for
influencing IBM's decision process:
The law is one such. That's what PSI and T3 are trying to use by
going to the courts.
Negotiation is another such tool. FSI was trying to follow that path,
but it doesn't look like it's working so well. (I wouldn't be
surprised if we saw FSI filing suit in the near future as well.)
Collective action is another such path. The PWDFLEXES group
(tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pwdflexes) is trying to take action
along those lines.
"Interesting times" ...
Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com
736 Fox Hollow Road VOICE: 540-456-8536
Afton, VA 22920 FAX: 540-456-6658
At 12/3/2007 05:04 PM, Dave Kopischke wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 05:43:41 -0500, David Cole wrote:
As Ralph Johnson noted in his post to the FLEX-ES listserv, "Interesting!"
http://www.sys-con.com/read/468626.htm
IBM's intransigence in its so called "negotiations" with FSI, its
belligerence with PSI, its bullying of T3 and its total shunning
of >Hercules has created a substantial threat to my business and
the business of a hundred or two other small mainframe developers.
I no longer believe that IBM is acting in the long term interest of
the z/OS industry. Or more accurately, I believe that IBM's focus
on z/OS has changed from growth to consolidation, and that they see
themselves less as a hardware/software company and more as services
company. Their actions with respect to the z/OS world are utterly
anti-competitive and in total disregard of what is needed to
nurture the long term health of this portion of their business.
With all due respect, I don't believe IBM has an obligation to you
or any of us
to act responsibly nor fairly in this matter. This is IBM's property
and they are
entitled to sell it or allow access to it or give it away in any way
they see fit.
And that includes protecting it in any manner and with whatever ferocity they
feel appropriate.
But I also whole-heartedly agree with your sentiment as it relates
to the good
of our industry and our profession. Protectionist policies rarely stimulate
growth. I think many on this list have complained about this for years.
I think there's a better and more profitable business model to embrace. One
that stimulates growth, encourages education in the platform, and allows for
long-term growth and stability. That would include a no- or low-cost personal-
use version that can be used for educational purposes. Low-cost entry-level
hardware such as that offered by PSI. And special consideration for
independent developers and their products.
It would be interesting to pose this kind of option to a vote of IBM's
shareholders. Protectionist anti-growth business model or a business model
that embraces the future. I can't agree that IBM is obliged to do any of this
though. If IBM feels it is in their best interest to stifle growth
in z/OS and
embrace policies that ensure extinction, that is their right.
If you elect me president, CEO and chairman of IBM, I promise things would be
different.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
