Please see answers interspersed below. "db" wrote:
> > You seem to presume: 1) the costs of a PWD-offered solution > > are predominately attributable > > to the cost of the selected mainframe virtual machine, and 2) > > there is no reason for IBM's > > management to prefer one solution over another, and 3) that > > the solutions are exchangable. > > Actually, if you're willing to share the breakdown in your costs between > HW, emulation and IBM software, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Your request for a breakdown does not include a line item for overhead to the reseller associated with driving the PWD program offering according to IBM managment's specifications, something the resellers must promise to do. In any event, the breakdown is not mine to share seeing how the PWD offering is an IBM product into which we simply OEM. I will say that Flex-ES need not be a material cost component as you will note from my answer to another of your questions given further below. > the work we have done with Hercules has proved it sufficient > for our needs Then you don't apparently need things like true IEEEfp support, proper clocks, dead-right SMP support (memory consistency?), or, as your colleague Adam acknowledges, 64-bit linux under 64-bit VM (working SIE?). Its clear already to those delivering applications into z/OS production environments that the best chance for avoiding runtime outages (and perhaps millions in losses to customers) depends in part on starting with hi-fidelity development hardware. As linux becomes more mission critical to zSeries customers and more highly interactive with the zseries hardware then the same will be true for zLinux applications, and I believe that in part might explain the path IBM has chosen to take. > You are talking > specifically about commercial development. Sure, Sendmail, Inc probably > has enough cash to afford a medium-sized FlexES based solution. I don't > doubt that it would be a good choice for them. OK, but I note that is not what you initially responded to the guy. > I'm talking about the > one-man shops and the shops that need an occasional test system or a > small development system that are NOT in the business of producing > mass-market software <snip> these people are the ones you need to court and > attract, not the big vendors. I hope IBM will become more comfortable about this important class of developer's use of z/VM, but even then I imagine the considerations surrounding the software stack, such as those mentioned above, will still be important to them. > b) forestalling a piracy problem in the making by > making it easy to *be* legal and aboveboard (avoiding the RIAA mistake > with MP3 files: letting technology get so far ahead of them that they > can't put the genie back in the bottle). Most people are basically > honest and will be reasonable about licensing if their wallets can > support it. I'm trying to make a case > that IBM should offer the ADCD for licensing and use elsewhere at a > reasonable price for a small developer. I suggest that you start an effort of encouraging these small developers that aren't serviced by the $13,000 offering or by the free LCDS to declare themselves to IBM by joining the PWD (Its free) and filing a PWD development plan for producing a software offering for use on zSeries versions of Linux. Garthering such data and making known to IBM the insufficiency of their programmatic offerings in this area is probably an important first step. The fact that (small) developers don't do this, coupled with the "self-help" that one can easily note going on by watching emulator boards, are likely impediments to extending the offering. You say you want loaned copies of z/VM for your own developers, but have you yet joined the PWD and have you yet filed a development plan with them? If not, then doing so is a start. > OK, I'll put it out in the open. Can you provide a software only FlexES > package including the ADCD license in the $2.5-3K range? If so, then we > should talk seriously about it. If not, then see above for the argument > that there are people that do not fit the current program and cannot > afford to participate. Get IBM to agree to loan terms for its software that will fit this class of developer, which I believe must include providing some satisfaction that PWD's management's programmatic goals can be met and concerns asuaged, and assuming safeguards that our own reputation for customer satisfaction is well preserved, then the answer is certainly "yes". As has always been the case, it makes little sense for Fundamental to consider an offering unless IBM software can be licensed to it. PDW
