Re: [OS:N:] My thoughts on the issues raised by JMD

Tom Mortimer-Jones wrote:
> We are in a very exciting time technologically, there are some major
> paradigm shifts happening at the moment, including the huge uptake of
> the internet and the new paradigm of open source software
> development. The latter is causing traditional buisness methods to be
> turned on their heads, and buisnesses are finding new ways to make
> revenue. Who would have predicted just 10 years ago that IBM, HP etc
> would be inbracing a software development model where they give away
> some or all of the software that they produce for free? 

For reference, historically IBM developed open source (of a sort) 
software products up until February 8, 1983 for its mainframes. A strong 
community of volunteer user developers improved the source code and gave 
the code back to IBM and to other users who had also licensed the base 
IBM code (as diffs). While the IBM copyrights weren't free, the net 
effect was similar, since just about anyone wanting to use typical 
codebases (OS, compiler, editor, etc.) had a license for the core of 
them from IBM for their mainframe. The party ended when, for various 
reasons, IBM adopted that "Object Code Only" policy and stopped shipping 
source. One of the rationales may have been that since only a small 
percent of users actually tinkered with the source code, and that IBM 
was putting its innovative assets at risk, it wasn't worth offering -- a 
line of reasoning that misunderstood that the relatively small group of 
customizing users (often at universities) were the ones who drove many 
improvements in IBM technology (for free) and who served as advisors and 
leaders to much of the rest of the IBM mainframe community. It has been 
said that many IBM customers never forgave IBM for this changeover to an 
"OCO" policy, and some people think that change over was related to 
IBM's subsequent economic difficulties in the late 1980s an early 1990s 
which took a lot of hard work to turn around with new products in new 
areas (plus beefing up old ones). That history is one reason IBM "gets" 
open source and Linux as an institution -- for many people inside the 
company, open source is about IBM returning to its roots as a provider 
of mainly hardware and services (yes, monopolized when possible by 
patents).

I'm not saying all of IBM takes this stance -- IBM is like a city with 
many people working in many different niches (and selling copyrighted 
software remains one of them) -- just that much of the old guard (>20 
years service) and much of the recent new guard (<5 years service) get 
the notion of a uniform playing field for services and hardware (which 
then gives IBM's other strengths a chance to shine against competition). 
Most of the people in the middle OCO period left, were let go, or simply 
were not hired during IBM's downsizing during its doldrums int the late 
1980s, giving IBM a somewhat bimodal "years of service" distribution.

Granted, all of IBM's difficulties during those dark years can't be 
pinned entirely on the OCO choice for mainframe software. For example, 
and keeping with the theme of the failure of the computer industry to 
promulgate its innovations, had IBM repositioned its CS-9000 68000 based 
personal unix-y workstations for home use,
   http://www.columbia.edu/acis/history/cs9000.html
the computer landscape today would look quite different. Or, the 
computing world would also be a very different place today had IBM 
adopted Forth at no cost or QNX by license for the IBM PC OS instead of 
contracting the development of MS-DOS for the IBM PC from (according to 
the link below) some Preppy with a million dollar trust fund given at 
birth from a rich banker grandfather, aided by a prominent lawyer 
father, and given entry to IBM upper management by a socially connected 
mother, who started a company using government/university subsidized 
hardware and software to clone an openly specified computer language.
   http://www.magnet-i.com/magnet/ezine/15Jan1999/ff
If only Bill Gates had just finished a liberal arts college education 
that emphasized the value of quality (great software) over quantity 
(financial obesity). Kids, stay in school. :-)

For more details on IBM and the OCO issue, see:
  "VM and the VM Community: Past, Present, and Future" by Melinda Varian
   http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/
Text available here:
   http://pucc.princeton.edu/~melinda/25paper.pdf
Or brief related quotes here:
   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eComStation/message/497
E.G. "In February 1985, the SHARE VM Group presented IBM with a
White Paper that concluded with the sentence, "We hope that IBM will 
decide not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs." IBM chose not 
to reply to it. ...  A few months after the announcement of the OCO 
policy, IBM released the first OCO version of VM, VM/PC. VM/PC had a 
number of problems, including poor performance and incorrect, missing, 
or incompatible functions. Without source, users were unable to correct 
or compensate for these problems, so nobody was surprised when VM/PC 
fell flat. IBM continued throughout the decade to divert much of its
energy to closing up its systems, not noticing until too late that the 
rest of the industry (and many of its customers) were moving rapidly 
toward open systems."

--Paul Fernhout

"Those who do not consult their history are doomed to retype it." :-)


_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>