http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/

IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.

This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.

It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)


I thought this piece of news would tickle Mr Vaxman's fancy. Now that
"Vax" has been mentioned in this post, it makes it relevant to c.o.v.
:-) :-) :-) :-)

In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot> writes:
> [..]
>
> IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
> its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.
>
> This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
> business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
> doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
> offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.
>
> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)

What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

bill

JF Mezei wrote:
> [..]
>
> IBM had a pilot program to evaluate supporting Macintosh computers for
> its own staff. They are also looking towards becoming more multi-platform.
>
> This is interesting in light of the fact that IBM, having sold its PC
> business to Lenovo is no longer really tied to Microsoft. AKA: it
> doesn't need to kneel down in from of Bill Gates, and have a sacrificial
> offering to prove its loyalty to MS anymore.
>
> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)

wrong premise: IBM did not port their software to VMS because of MS
=>
wrong conclusion: they will now

Arne

In article <66q19aF2ks2anU1>, billg999 (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

IBM knows good stuff when they see it. And they know how to market.

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
[..]
>>
>> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
>> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)
>
> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?
>89$c3e8da3>,
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot> writes:
>
> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?
>

The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

Marty Kuhrt wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <4807a187$0$7289$c3e8da3>,
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot> writes:
>>> It would be a hoot if IBM started to port all its software to VMS
>>> despite HP's best efforts in the other direction :-) :-)
>>
>> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?
>
> The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
> services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
> was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
> comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

IBM consultants would probably support any OS for $$$.

But many IBM products WAS, DB2 etc. are not available for VMS.

Arne

On Apr 18, 7:46 pm, Marty Kuhrt <martynospa> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>> The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
> services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
> was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
> comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

Yet they supplanted many VMS systems with their AS/400's! Well, VAX/
VMS, at least. I personally witnessed one in action, and one of the AS/
400 programmers said the AS/400 was known as the VAX killer. :-(

AEF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arne Vajhøj [mailto:arne]
> Sent: April 18, 2008 9:19 PM
> To: Info-VAX
> Subject: Re: OT: IBM looking at Macintosh
>
> Marty Kuhrt wrote:
> IBM
> that
>
> IBM consultants would probably support any OS for $$$.
>
> But many IBM products WAS, DB2 etc. are not available for VMS.
>
> Arne
>

IBM, like HP, is a very big company. They have many different divisions
(some of which are larger than many companies) and will usually make
business decisions based on the needs their specific Cust base.

IBM Global Services is like HP in the same way i.e. both have Solaris,
AIX, OpenVMS, z/OS, Linux, Windows, HP-UX, NSK resources etc. You can not
survive in the SI world if you do not have access to these resources (either
directly of via contract workers).

I suspect the IBM product groups do not dictate how their Global Services
division should operate any more than the same scenario at HP.


Regards

Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
HP Services Canada
Voice: 613-254-8911
Fax: 613-591-4477
kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and AT)

OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.

In article <$yqIL4$wmzAi>,
koehler (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <66q19aF2ks2anU1>, billg999 (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>
>> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?
>
> IBM knows good stuff when they see it. And they know how to market.

And? Has IBM ever expressed an interest in being the owner of VMS?
I didn't think so.

And, of course, even if they did, the point still remains that VMS is not
now and probably never will be for sale.

bill

In article <PbOdnbA4ooNDr5TVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d>,
Marty Kuhrt <marty.nospammy> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> The last two VMS gigs I ran across were for shops outsourced through IBM
> services. At a previous job I shared a data center with a company that
> was looking to outsource it's VMS services. IBM had a more
> comprehensive and lower bid than anyone. IBM supports VMS.

Like other major players I have worked for in the past, IBM supports
whatever their customers want (unlike some companies that shall remain
nameless). They don't buy the companies, just support their customers.

Has IBM ever expressed an interest in purchasing VMS? So why would
you think they would be interested now that the product is on the
downhill side of its life?

bill

In article <01b89554-e11f-47cd-9a32-a23966054820>,
AEF <spamsink2001> writes:
> On Apr 18, 7:46 pm, Marty Kuhrt <martynospa> wrote:
>
> Yet they supplanted many VMS systems with their AS/400's! Well, VAX/
> VMS, at least. I personally witnessed one in action, and one of the AS/
> 400 programmers said the AS/400 was known as the VAX killer. :-(

Well, that was name (but not officially, I think) that IBM applied to the
AS/400. A lot of those sales were moves to the IBM name rather than
something specifically superior in the AS/400. DEC once had a time like
that. I still remember hearing; "I don't care who wins the bid as long as
it says VAX on the front of the machine." That was early in my beltway-
bandit days and I took the lesson to heart. Always, ALWAYS!, give the
customer what he wants, If it's not what he wants, even if it's superior
he will not be happy. Too bad the (many) owners of VMS lost sight of that.

bill

Main, Kerry wrote:
> From: Arne Vajhøj [mailto:arne]
>
> IBM, like HP, is a very big company. They have many different divisions
> (some of which are larger than many companies) and will usually make
> business decisions based on the needs their specific Cust base.
>
> IBM Global Services is like HP in the same way i.e. both have Solaris,
> AIX, OpenVMS, z/OS, Linux, Windows, HP-UX, NSK resources etc. You can not
> survive in the SI world if you do not have access to these resources (either
> directly of via contract workers).
>
> I suspect the IBM product groups do not dictate how their Global Services
> division should operate any more than the same scenario at HP.

Any why should they ?

A profitable business is a profitable business !

Arne

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> Well, that was name (but not officially, I think) that IBM applied to the
> AS/400. A lot of those sales were moves to the IBM name rather than
> something specifically superior in the AS/400. DEC once had a time like
> that. I still remember hearing; "I don't care who wins the bid as long as
> it says VAX on the front of the machine." That was early in my beltway-
> bandit days and I took the lesson to heart. Always, ALWAYS!, give the
> customer what he wants, If it's not what he wants, even if it's superior
> he will not be happy. Too bad the (many) owners of VMS lost sight of that.

"The customer is always right, even if they're wrong"

may not always apply to individual cases, but as an
overall strategy it does.

Arne

On Apr 19, 12:05 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <yqIL4wm>,
> koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>
>
> And? Has IBM ever expressed an interest in being the owner of VMS?
> I didn't think so.
>
> And, of course, even if they did, the point still remains that VMS is not
> now and probably never will be for sale.
>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
> billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>


C'mon, Bill, be fair. The question wasn't whether IBM was likely or
interested in VMS. The question was

> >> What could possibly make IBM want to do anything at all with VMS?

and the answer was quite appropriate. As you say, that is apparently
not enough for them to show interest, and your last point, while it
may well be true, does not invalid Bob's answer in the least. So I'm
not saying your points are wrong. I'm just saying that Bob's answer
was a good answer. Now if the question were, instead,

"What would be enough for IBM to actually attempt a purchase of VMS?"

then your criticisms would be quite appropriate. But that wasn't the
question. The fact that IBM apparently does support at least some VMS
installations means that it already does have something to do with
VMS. So the premise of the (original) question isn't even right in the
first place.

AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

In article <d36910f6-2fed-4d3e-9c70-fe5c1fd0f366>,
AEF <spamsink2001> writes:
> On Apr 19, 12:05 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> C'mon, Bill, be fair. The question wasn't whether IBM was likely or
> interested in VMS. The question was

Actually, the original statement was, "It would be a hoot if IBM started
to port all its software to VMS", which is once again this stranger notion
that IBM, "despite HP's best efforts in the other direction" was going
to come along and save VMS. Reality time, people, VMS's fate lies in
the hands of HP alone. IBM isn't going to save it. Unisys isn't going
to save it. No one is going to ride up at the last minute to save it.
It's up to HP and we already know what their direction is.

>> and the answer was quite appropriate. As you say, that is apparently
> not enough for them to show interest, and your last point, while it
> may well be true, does not invalid Bob's answer in the least. So I'm
> not saying your points are wrong. I'm just saying that Bob's answer
> was a good answer. Now if the question were, instead,
>
> "What would be enough for IBM to actually attempt a purchase of VMS?"
>
> then your criticisms would be quite appropriate. But that wasn't the
> question. The fact that IBM apparently does support at least some VMS
> installations means that it already does have something to do with
> VMS. So the premise of the (original) question isn't even right in the
> first place.

IBM supports lots of different OSes. They have never bought any of them.
IBM owns the OSes it created. I am aware of no OS currently owned by IBM
that originated in some other company. Add to that the fact that IBM shows
no sign of porting any of their current non-OS software, like DB2, to VMS.
Thye are willing to support (and have the resources to support) other
people's products in order to keep their customers happy, but that does
not mean they are going to buy something like VMS to save it. Much more
likely that they will have their salesmen spend the needed additional time
with the customer pointing out the direction VMS is headed and pushing them
to port to an all IBM solution. That's called marketing.

> AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

You could always buy a new keyboard where the capslock wasn't stuck.
I know of no ne who actually writes in all caps, although ee cummings
dir write in all lowercase. :-)

bill