Re: WAVV requirements

On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 12:12:31PM -0500, Sam Knutson wrote:
> At 03:32 PM 11/3/2002, Phil wrote:
[quoting me]
> > > I would love nothing more than to see a SHARE requirement for a
> >hobbyist
> > > license, if for no other reason than IBM would have to take the idea
> > > seriously enough to formulate a formal answer.
> Personally I think a SHARE requirement might not be the right method
> rather the Hobbyist and Educational license issues might be better
> addressed by a white paper to IBM.  The Software Asset Management in SHARE
> project might be the right venue to raise the issues in.  Bill Horton who
> previously was my SHARE boss in the MVS/SCP project is heading up the SAM
> project and is a great guy who I am sure would be willing to discuss the
> best means to develop and submit this to IBM with interested parties.

You're right, Bill is a good guy. Got his email address? I'll drop him a
note and see what he thinks.

> Any IBM executive who does not take customer concerns seriously should be
> ashamed.

Yes, but are they?

> >I would like to see ´SHARE satisfy itself as to the probity of the
> >whole effort before it embarrasses itself with IBM in such a way.

I'll be happy to satisfy any of SHARE's concerns at any time. I subscribe
to, and follow, the SHARE Canons of Conduct (which is probably why I'm
paying my own way, since my employer would prefer that I solicit business
there (which is prohibited)). Those Canons prohibit engaging in, or
supporting, piracy of IBM or other vendor software. If SHARE believed that
Hercules were nothing but a piracy tool, as Phil likes to argue, then they
would not keep asking me to come back to talk about Hercules.

> I think the point of a user group is not to be a "yes man" to an industry
> or to a particular business concern.  A user group represents the needs
> and interests of the user community.  These needs sometimes seem unlikely
> to be satisfied when viewed from the rarified air up in the boardroom but
> they are real needs and real concerns from practitioners.

...which is why IBM continues to participate and support SHARE and other
user groups.

> IBM was never going to relax the requirement for z/Architecture mode only
> use on zSeries CPU(s) running z/OS.  IBM was never going to allow non-SMS
> HFS and PDSE data sets.  IBM was never going to take the PDSPAIN white
> paper seriously.  IBM was... you get the idea.

Yup. If the users speak loud enough, IBM will listen.

(What's the PDSPAIN white paper, and where can I read it?)

> The reasons for a hobbyist or developers license of an enterprise
> operating system has been discussed in the past.  I personally feel
> strongly that IBM would benefit by providing such a license and by making
> it available on a wide number of platforms hopefully to include no-cost or
> lost options.

I don't think there's anyone in the IBM systems programming community who
believes that a personal-use license would be anything but beneficial.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/JjlUgA/vN2EAA/kG8FAA/dpFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
hercules-advocacy-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/