My point was it is possible to cheat IBM (illegally of course)
without Hercules or PSI machine. So, it is not good excuse
for denying software for PSI machine owners.
a) I don't see the connection.
b) That isn't the excuse in any case.
In fact, IBM has not said in public what its response to
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Moulder
I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic.
Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to
run on a PSI machine. If PSI totally on its own writes
firmware loaded at IPL time to
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though.
This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an
RS/6000.
US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997)
Birger Heede
IBM
Phil Payne wrote:
My point was it is possible to cheat IBM (illegally of course)
without
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Moulder
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 3:14 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
snip
Upgrades have always been an issue in the z environment,
now
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:31:06 -, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RESEARCH.FREESERVE.CO.UK wrote:
a) IBM didn't have a clue how much power an Amdahl (or any other pocessor)
had. Amdahl (and I
was part of the process) declared its processors to IBM.
Ah, yes. Thanks for reminding me. But IBM
Birger,
Was this the old R/390 follow-on to the P/390?
Bob Richards
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Birger Heede
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Phil
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of R.S.
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 9:30 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
snip
What stops you from using z/OS on large z/Series machine
without
Birger Heede wrote:
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though.
This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card) supported in an
RS/6000.
US Announcement Letter is 197-164 (from July 22, 1997)
Can we say Phil knows nothing about mainframe machines ?
Not good as for consultant.
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Birger Heede
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 8:50 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though.
This is (was) a S/390 MicroProcessor Complex (PCI Card
Can we put this whole thing to bed, please?
We all know that IBM owns the intellectual property know as z/OS and can
license, or not license it, whenever or whereever they please.
The fact that their restrictions may be, to some of us, unreasonable
does not negate the point that IBM may have
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Birger Heede
Bob
My ann ltr reference was not actually to the first announce
of the P/390 card (just a ref. I had 'close by'). I actually
thought we (IBM) used R/390 for the RS/6000 version and P/390
for the PC
I would not like you to conclude that.
Phil's memory is much better than mine (whether his is hardened on
external storage or not). So if he knows nothing where does that leave me?
Birger Heede
IBM
R.S. wrote:
Birger Heede wrote:
Phil asked: Love to know what a 9662 is, though.
This is
AMEN, Brother!
Rick Fochtman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
11/06/2006 11:40 AM
Please respond to
IBM Mainframe Discussion List IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
To
IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
cc
Subject
Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Can we put this whole thing
On 6 Nov 2006 08:40:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Fochtman)
wrote:
We all know that IBM owns the intellectual property know as z/OS and can
license, or not license it, whenever or whereever they please.
The fact that their restrictions may be, to some of us, unreasonable
does not negate
Tom Marchant wrote:
[...]
When Amdahl started selling processors, the operating system was free.
When IBM started to charge for it, they knew how much power an Amdahl
processor had and where it fit in the pricing structure. It's harder
for them to know that with am emulator. What stops you
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 15:14:00 -0600, Tom Moulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Begin Quoted E-mail --
then why couldn't the
customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine.
You don't buy z/OS. You license it to run on a particular machne.
When
When Amdahl started selling processors, the operating system
was free. When IBM started to charge for it, they knew how much
power an Amdahl processor had and where it fit in the pricing
structure. It's harder for them to know that with am emulator.
What stops you from putting in faster
In a message dated 11/5/2006 9:30:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can buy license for the smallest z9BC and use the same code on
2064-2C16 bought on second-hand market. Or several machines. Or without
buying any license, just pay your friendly sysprog for
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Fochtman
Sent: Saturday 04 November 2006 07:55
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Alan, there's nothing wrong with being paternal, as you put
it. But sometimes the policies of IBM seem to be
Ed Finnell wrote:
In a message dated 11/5/2006 9:30:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can buy license for the smallest z9BC and use the same code on
2064-2C16 bought on second-hand market. Or several machines. Or without
buying any license, just pay your
On Saturday, 11/04/2006 at 04:46ZE10, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM
software may want to contact IBM.
Pity customer(s) are perceived to be so bloody stupid that this even
needs to be stated.
I not necessarily disagreeing
Neither is the IBM 8668 which is the system used to run an ESL 8 mips FLEX
based system.
Hi, Seb. Still working for Cornerstone? I think it would only be polite to
the list to
acknowledge that, if true.
Then again perhaps CSI has terminated as many people as T3. I know Aled has
gone from
One thing I find interesting in the PSI letter is that there
is no mention of z/VM support, correctly licensed or not. :-) Given that a
significant portion of new workloads being moved to the mainframe are zLinux
and z/VM based, this is surprising, imho, at least. Perhaps PSI believes
that being
---snip-
Stupid? Hardly. I've just observed that there's just a ... blind spot
... when it comes to licensing agreements. Perhaps it's because sysprogs
aren't the people who see and must agree to the TsCs contained therein?
In prehistoric times,
Of Alan Altmark
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 12:38 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On Friday, 11/03/2006 at 07:18 MST, Jeffrey D. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I don't understand is if IBM won't allow z/OS to run on
a Hercules system, then why would IBM
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 10:32:48 -0600, Tom Moulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic.
Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can ALLOW z/OS to run on a PSI
machine. If PSI totally on its own writes firmware loaded at IPL time to
allow z/OS to run on an
Begin Quoted E-mail --
then why couldn't the
customer buy z/OS and run the software on the machine.
You don't buy z/OS. You license it to run on a particular machne.
Of course the
customer would be taking some risk because the support would
One thing I find interesting in the PSI letter is that there is no mention
of z/VM
support, correctly licensed or not. :-)
That's what happens when you hire ex Top Gun mentalities.
When they snuck in sometime in early 2005 they were obsessed with Top Gun and
went for z/OS.
By the time IBM
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:44:14 -, Phil Payne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
vast snip
I was sceptical about Hercules. I got slimed for it, but I was right.
Can't let you get away with that, Phil - you were dead wrong. You repeatedly
stated that IBM would shut Hercules down, harped on about
More news from PSI on the state of their commercial emulation solution.
The next few months seem to hold the potential for interesting
developments in this area.
Thanks, Sam
-Original Message-
From: Platform Solutions, Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006
Knutson, Sam wrote:
More news from PSI on the state of their commercial emulation solution.
The next few months seem to hold the potential for interesting
developments in this area.
Thanks, Sam
Interesting. Can you do a rough comparison of
PSI's offering to FLEX-ES and Hercules? Can
PWD
The PSI letter is intriguing. Will it reduce software costs? Will it
perform as well as its Big Blue cousin? Will it become a very viable
alternative to the server farm?
Daniel McLaughlin
Z-Series Systems Programmer
Crawford Company
4680 N. Royal Atlanta
Tucker GA 30084
phone:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Comstock
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:57 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
Knutson, Sam wrote:
More news from PSI on the state
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 07:18:16 -0700, Jeffrey D. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I don't understand is if IBM won't allow z/OS to run on
a Hercules system, then why would IBM allow z/OS to run on
a PSI system?
Better legal representation and past history. Remember a company
called Amdahl?
I'm not sure how many receive the PSI Newsletter, but in case you don't, I've
appended the V4
text. There's nothing new in it - it's amazing how many people think they can
re-boil old
material and dupe gullible reporters.
(One copy is enough, guys!)
I may be proved wrong. I believe it's
Jeffrey D. Smith wrote:
What I don't understand is if IBM won't allow z/OS to run on
a Hercules system, then why would IBM allow z/OS to run on
a PSI system?
Perhaps because PSI is an established company, like FSI (Flex/ES) and UMX.
If a company was marketing a packaged solution based on
snip
Interesting. Can you do a rough comparison of PSI's offering to FLEX-ES
and Hercules? Can PWD people get the software at low cost for all three
platforms (well, I know right now that Hercules cannot legally run z/OS
without some special dispensation).
Clever term open mainframe, but what
On 11/3/06, Phil Payne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nothing adds up with PSI. Nothing. I hear random, unsupported comments -
supposedly from IBM executives - about PSI never getting license agreements
because we don't deal with patent infringers.
On 3 Nov 2006 08:09:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pommier, Rex
R.) wrote:
Apparently their definition of open mainframe means it runs on an
Intel processor. From their press release it is running on an
industry-standard Intel Itanium 2. Since when was the Itanic an
industry standard?
Define
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Brazee
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 10:42 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: The PSI Letter V4
On 3 Nov 2006 08:09:13 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pommier, Rex
R.) wrote
So, how do you explain the fact that they have demonstrated
running z/OS on one of their machines. Where did that licence
come from.
Giggle.
This is part of the fun. One of three licenses (allegedly) purchased online
via a loophole in
IBM's sytems and somewhat questionably transnationally
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 01:37 -0500, Alan Altmark wrote:
Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM
software may want to contact IBM.
Pity customer(s) are perceived to be so bloody stupid that this even
needs to be stated.
I not necessarily disagreeing mind you, just
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 01:37:33 -0500, Alan Altmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please note that no PSI machines are listed at
http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/library/swpriceinfo/hardware.html
. Before making any assumptions, a customer with questions about IBM
software may want to
43 matches
Mail list logo
