On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:18:42 -0800, Dean Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Complain if you want but the reality is if you want a hobbyist license you >have >> to find a way for IBM to make money on it. Heck, you might get them to at >least >> listen to you if you could find a way for them to break-even on the >license (but >> I doubt it). > >Interestingly, I am quite sure IBM doesn't make money on Linux itself. >They make their money with it in other ways. Where there is a will, there >is a way. The question is simply whether there is a will. > >I was at an IBM seminar where they talked about TCP/IP vs. Token Ring. IBM >figured they would 'win' that battle because Token Ring was architecturally >superior. The finally admitted that the limitations that TCP/IP had were >simply engineering problems, and that the cost of Token Ring made it >uncompetitive. We now all use TCP/IP, however inferior it is. It is a valid argument, but it was Token Ring versus Ethernet (hardware) or TCP/IP versus SNA (software). In each case IBM hubris led to a great fall. > >MVS/VM/VSE will suffer the same fate unless IBM figures out a way to make it >cheap. I'm sure it is simply a business problem that can be solved if one >thinks 'outside the box'. For example, one could offer a completely >unsupported copy of zOS, zVM or VSE and Flex-ES for the cost of >copying/delivery/etc. with a license that says non-commercial use (Intel >does this with their Linux compilers, for example). If you want to later >develop a commercial product - you pay what everyone else pays. No loss >of revenues, as there is no support - but potentially a larger group of ISVs >later. Anyway, it seems like it has worked elsewhere for other 'inferior' >platforms... :-) > >Regards, > Dean > >> >> Regards, >> Jeff >> -- >> Jeffrey C Barnard >> Barnard Software, Inc. http://www.bsiopti.com >> Phone 407-323-4773 Fax 407-323-4775
