> 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.
Peter, I don't have anything against Flex or any other solution. We're talking about solving two different problems, and I think we're missing an opportunity to solve both problems. > > 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. My exact words were "for a goodly sum." No value judgement there; noting that it costs money. If you want to read it as a slight on Flex, then go ahead. I don't see it that way, and I don't see the point in beating that carrion any longer. Do some reading in Ecclesiastes for my view on most software tools. > > 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. Why would I encourage pestering an already overworked group in IBM to accept a ton of paperwork from people that can't actually perform the development they're applying to do? That actually costs IBM money for no gain; not the goal I want. This is not just a Linux issue, although the Linux developers are likely to drive the discussion harder than the few -- and dwindling -- number of independent z/OS developers. > Garthering such data and making known to IBM the insufficiency of their > programmatic offerings in this area is probably an important first step. Thus the current discussion. > 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. See my point B in earlier notes. Which would you rather see -- some IBM revenue for people legitimately wanting to do this, or none at all via the current underground trade in pirate copies of the ADCDs? IBM can try to treat the symptoms after the fact or inoculate against the disease in advance. I argue that the latter is much less expensive (and actually may show a positive revenue impact) than the former. Suing pirates is expensive and time-consuming. Providing a clerk or a useful WWW site where legitimate orders can be taken is a lot cheaper than lawyers. > 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? Yes, and yes. > > 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 is the point of the conversation. So, how do you want to start the effort? Do you have data you're willing to share to help convince IBM? How do we move this forward in a productive way? -- db
