On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 17:23:48 +0000, Doug wrote: >And maybe the third dumb thing they did was give DOS to Gates and trash >OS/2 > And way before that, not making PL/S a product. It left a void that's belatedly being filled by Metal C.
>------ Original Message ------ >From: "Farley, Peter x23353" >Sent: 09-Jun-20 12:25:16 > >>The first really dumb thing that IBM did was to STOP providing heavily >>discounted mainframe hardware and software to universities and colleges. The >>NYC public colleges (CUNY, City University of New York) used to offer courses >>in COBOL and VSAM and many other mainframe technologies in the 1970's and >>into the 1980's, as did prestigious universities like NYU, but by the time my >>son attended CUNY post-2000 there were none of these courses available any >>more. Everything in the CS area was x86 hardware and Linux OS based. >> >>The second really dumb thing that IBM did was to stop caring and feeding >>smaller commercial businesses running various combinations of DOS / VSE / VM >>software on (then) less-expensive hardware, at least in the US. I think >>Europe still has a thriving or at least surviving VM/VSE community. >>Successful small businesses, while less profitable in the present can easily >>over time become larger businesses needing the IBM flagship OS and >>corresponding hardware. No small ecosystem growing into a larger ecosystem >>means the potentially profitable pipeline dries up. >> >>Just my personal opinions of course. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Tom Brennan >>Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 11:54 AM >> >>When I bought my Yamaha piano in 1989, I heard a story that Yamaha had been >>supplying free pianos to universities for years. It was more than them just >>being nice, they knew that someone practicing every day on the school grand >>piano would likely go on to buy one, or be the decision maker for an >>orchestra, night club, or whatever. I always thought that was super smart of >>them. What I always thought was rather dumb, is that IBM doesn't do similar >>with educational use of all their software. And that's just copied bits ... >>no wood, metal, delivery, tuning, etc. >> Was the (1959?) Consent Decree an obstacle to that? Did IBM partly persist under the umbrella of R&D partnerships? >>On 6/9/2020 5:02 AM, Bob Bridges wrote: >>> A coworker just sent me this brief article. >>> >>> >>> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/everyone-wants-to-retire-mainframes-but-74-of-modernization-efforts-fail/ -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
