Well, just my $0.02, and I have no inside knowledge at all...
But...
My guess is IBM is doing it's level (and legal) best to get out from under
encumbering agreements, and will sooner or later, embrace Hercules as the
platform of choice for Sub 200 mips Mainframe platforms. Yep - Hercules.
There are no downsides to this from IBM's point of view - they only license
mainframe software, such as z/OS, to IBM branded hardware and they build in a
hardware dongle to make sure. They can of course do exactly that, since the
source code is open and there is no restriction on how you use Hercules that
would apply. They simply *do not charge for Hercules*.
If and when they do so, it is a great financial advantage to everyone, and they
may just open up and restructe the PWD program to be very much more cost
effective to developers. At least, that is the pattern IBM seems to follow -
every time a PWD program dies off, there is a better one to replace at less
cost and with more functionality to the user.
(Except for the innumerable an annoying times the website is redesigned. That
just keeps getting worse, in my no so humble opinion.)
Anyways, it could happen. :)
-Paul
--- Begin Message ---
> > With the loss of the Flex 64-bit capability for general
> > use....
> Sorry to nitpick, but I don't believe there has ever been a FLEX
64-bit
> capability for general use.
I'd say that the unavailability of the 64 bit FLEX *is* the loss I'm
talking about.
On this list (and others), we've been discussing the problems between
FSI and IBM on public release of the 64 bit FLEX for months. It will not
see the light of day for general customers due to IBM and FSI being
unable to come to an agreement. We've seen Cornerstone and T3 present
different sides of the case, and you have also responded to the
discussion.
I call that inability to find common ground a loss. It's an obvious loss
to FSI who did follow the rules and tried to work it out with IBM, for
obvious reasons. It's a loss to IBM for people who a) don't have the
space for a z9, b) don't have the environmentals for a z9, and c) can't
afford a z9.
IBM is losing, and will continue to lose unless there is a different
approach from System z marketing, those small to medium Z customers --
not to the z9 BC, pSeries or iSeries, but to *other vendors* who can
deliver a solution that doesn't require a lot of renovation.
Ultimately, the loser is the poor schmuck at the customer who's stuck
with having to cope with the switch when some finance bozo cuts off the
funding for a working solution because it would require renovating the
machine room.
IBM certainly has the R&D capability to out-innovate these upstarts --
the patent IP that seems to be the point of the PSI discussion makes it
clear that there's plenty more brains at IBM than elsewhere. The
question is how quickly it can be transformed into *something people
want to buy*.
Clearly there's a desire for a solution in this space that IBM is not
providing. How long can IBM afford to bleed small customers that
eventually might grow up to be bigger customers -- but have already
switched to competing technology? That's really the open question. The
current marketing strategy is killing your pipeline of new workload. (We
won't raise the general dumbness of the current software marketing
campaigns, although it's hardly helping the story...)
IMHO, it comes down to the statement that if you can keep a small
customer on z until they *are* bigger, then it becomes an inertial
decision to STAY on z. The longer you keep them, the harder it is to
switch either to -- or from -- System z.
So, call it what you will. Loss suits me.
--- End Message ---
