On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:04:52 -0600, Dave Kopischke wrote: >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.
Dave, that may well be true from a strictly legal point of view. But from a moral point of view, I would contend (perhaps controversially) that IBM *does* have a moral obligation to the rest of us with respect to z/OS and the mainframe architectures. IBM worked long and hard over many years to successfully establish S/360 and its successors as *the* standard computer architecture. Indeed for a 20 year period between about 1970 to 1990 S/360/370/390 was almost the only architecture which would reasonably be considered for most business systems large or small. With the result that applications tied to MVS and VSE are now firmly embedded into the infrastructure of the various information systems (banks, utilities, government, airlines) that allow our society to function the way it does. The figure of $1 trillion invested in software compatible with IBM mainframes has been widely quoted. So in a sense, z/Architecture and z/OS belong to us all. All of us, even those who never heard of a mainframe, have a vested interest in the good management of mainframe systems. IBM are the guardians of this architecture, and as guardians they have a moral duty to the rest of us to ensure that the future of these systems is not put in jeopardy for short-term financial gain. IBM have made a colossal fortune on the back of the S/360 strategy. Society has willingly paid IBM for the benefits that accrued. Now it's time for IBM to recognize that society has a legitimate stake in the mainframe technology in which we have all so heavily invested. Everyone who has ever bought products or services from companies which use mainframe computer systems (and that must be just about everyone) has contributed to IBM's research and development costs. The technology does not belong solely to IBM's shareholders and directors, it belongs morally to those who ultimately footed the bill. Dave Kopischke also wrote: >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. If you elect me president, CEO >and chairman of IBM, I promise things would be different. OK Dave, you have my vote :-) It's in everybody's interest that PSI should win this case against IBM. Those of us in particular whose livelihood depends on the viability of our IBM mainframe skills need a thriving mainframe market, one in which both large and small systems are widely available at reasonable prices. We should thank PSI for standing up and courageously fighting against the tide. The entry of T3 Technologies into the case (see http://www.t3t.com/news.aspx), coupled with the announcement of additional funding for PSI, is welcome news. The motion of intervention available on the T3 website: http://www.t3t.com/pdf/11_26_07_ibm_litigation.pdf presents a cogent synopsis of the affair, and, although lengthy, is more readable than the previous IBM and PSI documents available at http://www.platform-solutions.com/news-litigation.php Regards, Roger Bowler http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler Hercules "the people's mainframe" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
