RE: Re: slanted article "Inside System Storage -- by Tony Pearson"

:-)
Some things are constant


  _____  

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of kerravon86
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 09:34 
To: [email protected]
Subject: [hercules-advocacy] Re: slanted article "Inside System Storage --
by Tony Pearson"


  

--- In [email protected]
<mailto:hercules-advocacy%40yahoogroups.com> , Paul Raulerson
<paul.raulerson@...> wrote:
>
> Well, like I said, we just have to agree to disagree. 
> I have a much more
> libertarian take on the issue than you do. 

That isn't libertarian. That is just evil.

> I do not think profits or making
> money, or even becoming a billionaire is an 
> "evil" thing. 

Misrepresenting my view is evil too.

I never said that it was evil to make money in a
capitalist society. I said the exact reverse.

What I object to is the suggestion that any
company making money in a capitalist society is
some sort of charitable saint that we should be
thankful, rather than just another guy out for a 
buck. And the claim that IBM's board of directors
are full of integrity and we should put our faith
in them, as they engage in predatory practices.

> And I not ashamed to say I am quite happy 
> holding on to my very modest IBM shareholdings.

What a surprising revelation there. At least that
explains why for the first time in my life I have
seen someone in the middle of a debate drop a link
to a board of directors of a multinational and
say "take a look - these are people of integrity".

> Nor do I think IBM is an "evil" company, though 
> the closest to that I know

I didn't say IBM was evil either. I have explicitly
said that if I was on the board of directors, the
decisions I would make would be to maintain IBM's
unfair monopoly too. In a company setting, my loyalty
must be to the company, with only the law above that.
That's the conditions of taking on the job.

I explicitly said that it was not IBM's job to
put constraints on their own market share. It is
the government's job to do that. To break up
natural (not evil) monopolies.

> of is when an acquaintance of mine, Edwin Black, 
> uncovered some pretty
> interesting evidence that IBM sold equipment to 
> Genrmany before WWII that
> was used in some pretty unpleasant ways.

No evil there, either. It is up to governments to
decide the rules of who you can trade with, not IBM.

> I do think rants about IBM like this will not lead 
> to getting Hercules accepted and supported by IBM

If I were IBM, nothing in the world other than
explicit legislation would get me to accept Hercules
or support it in any way.

IBM is doing the exact sensible thing, at least
for its short-term profits are concerned. I think
that in the long term they are forcing people to
move off MVS. If I was any other company using
MVS, I'd be looking at opportunities to move off
that platform so that I am not beholden to a
monopoly.

But short-term, and maybe medium-term, fleecing
customers is precisely what IBM should be doing
for their shareholders, so their behaviour is 
perfectly understandable, natural, rational, 
amoral, and exactly what I would do myself, were
I in that position.

But from a government/world point of view, I
would have ended IBM's predatory practices long
ago. And I would have taken a portion of the 
government funds that go into various research 
programs to create Hercules in the first place,
rather than wait for individuals to do so. I
would also have created a public domain clone
of Windows and z/OS to help break up these
monopolies (rather than just splitting the
company which I don't think achieves anything).

That is precisely why I spend my own free time
doing what the hopeless governments have failed
to do for decades. At least I can say that I tried.
As opposed to trying to keep a monopoly in place
and attempting to pass it off as some sort of
saintly charity with a straight face.

BFN. Paul.

P.S. I forgot to add a disclaimer to a previous
message - yes, I know Mother Theresa is the
scam of the century, but it is part of our
language for now.







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]