> > I don't believe a hobbyist license would have the slightest effect. The days when mainframe > users recruited self-taught people are long gone - they look for experience in the type of > environment they have, and any training they fund they expect to be professionally given. > > The "hobbyist license" proponents number at most a few dozen around the world, and their > demographics are no different from the pending retirees you mention - there is no great mass > of young would-be mainframe programmers held back solely by lack of access to the software. > Maybe a few - but nothing like enough to make any difference.
I know a manager who has used that exact same argument to kill off several Linux projects, amongst others. In fact, this person believes that nobody really uses Linux at all, and that it is doomed to failure. "There is no market", "Nobody is asking for it", etc. He speaks with management, who speak with other management. OTOH, the people who speak with the technicians hear a different story, but that information is brushed aside as being provided by people who "don't know what they are talking about". I know a small mainframe shop where at least 3/4 of the people there would *love* to have a hobbyist license to be able to do work at home. They have families and can't spend a lot of extra time at work - and the dial up access is too slow and to restrictive. I also personally know of approximately a half dozen unemployed system programmers who would love to keep their skills current, and I know of at least a dozen young people who have recently been employed doing mainframe work and want to understand more and have access to a way to learn outside of work. So - how do you organize a group of disparate individuals who are not part of any particular organization? I know them because of what I personally do outside of mainframes (see http://www.realworldtech.com), and have done for most of my career (working with mainframes). The perspective you have is largely influenced by the environment you immerse yourself in. I heard about Linux in 1993 from some guy in my shop who was 'into Unix', and I wanted to find a hobbyist license. I know only of Coherent, which cost something like $100 for a copy. He suggested Linux, so I got a copy of the Slackware CD, and started playing with it. 10 years later, Coherent is nowhere to be found, and Linux is probably the most well-known Unix in the world. Funny thing, though. I had suggested to management that we should build Unix solutions, and their response was.... that there was no business case for it. They didn't see their customers organizing and asking for solutions, and we have no expertise in it. Linux was considered a 'plaything' (gee, can we make a correlation between that and PCs?). How do you impose vision on someone who refuses to see? How do you prove something that is unprovable, and requires a leap of faith? Established businesses don't like leaps of faith, of course, unless they are desparate - and IBM is apparently not desparate in this area. > Because of the critical nature of software revenues to IBM, there is no doubt whatsoever that > these new Ts&Cs would have to be approved by the Management Committee. This organisation > reacts in a veto-like structure to changes in the status quo - change is generally resisted > unless there is a clear positive business case. Change with no obvious short-term benefit > would be rejected instantly - even one voice raised against it would be enough. Given that > the top IBMers are political animals (less so than in other organisations, but even so) who > would you find to sponsor it? If, e.g., someone from zSeries - how would you deal with > potential vetoes from Software Group? Given the issues IBM currently faces, how would you > even get time for a revenue-neutral project? This, of course, was part of my point when I said that any successful business wants to maintain the status quo. This apparently includes those businesses that are making money under the current situation. It is human nature to keep things as they are when one is comfortable, and the barrier to entry ensures that a lot of money (i.e. - profit) can be made by those few who have access to it - but for how long? Those who figure it will last long enough until they can retire don't care, of course, and will put up every argument against changing things. :-). > > It goes on. And on. None of this has been thought through by those demanding hobbyst > licenses. I think much of it has been thought through, except for the specific business issues that only IBM is aware of. But those are simply business issues that can be dealt with if they *want* to. The only roadblock is in the "it's the way we have always done it" mentality. Even the most thoughtful person can get stuck in that rut, IMO. I also find it interesting that many mainframe people said for many years that there is no money in 'free' software. Interesting that that is where much the money is being spent today... :-). I personally don't expect anything to change, but I think it is amusing to watch all of the responses and hear people I know complain about it and yet hear that there is no reason to do it... Regards, Dean > > -- > Phil Payne > http://www.isham-research.com > +44 7785 302 803 > +49 173 6242039
