On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:12:26 -0700, Bill Gunshannon <billg999>
wrote:

> 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.

The only reason IBM would buy OpenVMS would be for the customer base, but
that opportunity disappeared ca. 1992.

In article <op.t9w5h0tdhv4qyg>,
"Tom Linden" <tom> writes:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:12:26 -0700, Bill Gunshannon <billg999>
> wrote:
>> The only reason IBM would buy OpenVMS would be for the customer base, but
> that opportunity disappeared ca. 1992.

Which is kinda the point I was trying to get accross. Every couple of weeks
we see these messages implying that somehow, IBM is going to come riding in
on big white horse to save the day. It just ain't gonna happen. Even if
(and I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell of it happening) IBM
were to buy VMS it would likely be, as stated above, strictly for the customer
bnase (if there actually was one) and it would mark the end of the product
just as surely as HO is doing now.

This subject always reminds me of the place in "Jesus Christ, Superstar"
where Judas sings, "You know what your supporters feel, You'll escape in
the final reel." Of course, everyone knows He didn't. :-)

bill

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> Which is kinda the point I was trying to get accross. Every couple of weeks
> we see these messages implying that somehow, IBM is going to come riding in
> on big white horse to save the day. It just ain't gonna happen.

When Compaq bought Digital, Pfeiffer had given much hope Compaq would
leverage Alpha and VMS. Then Pfeiffer was ousted and Curly set out to
complete Palmer's job.

Then comes HP, and there was some HP that HP, having more experience
with enterprise systems, might do something good with VMS (especially
since HP initially had a vested interest in making that IA64 contraption
succesful). It fairly quickly became apparent that this wasn't to be the
case.

Then Carly was ousted, and this "solid" Hurd fellow comes in, and again,
there is hope that his reorganisations and leadership might give VMS
another chance, and that Hurd might have no problem killing off IA64
since it wasn't his puppy. But this hasn't happened.

Last summer, the news that HP is happy with Cerner abandonning VMS, and
the fact that HP calculators got way more exposure for their birthday
than the token exposure VMS got. (and that happened only after we
complained nothing had been done by HP, not even a press release.

HP is a solid company with plenty of ink profits to hide the loss of
VMS. That was not the case for Digital nor for Compaq. The loss of VMS
wouldn't even change HP's financials.

HP has no reason to kill VMS at this point in time. But the minute it no
longer makes money, the plug will be pulled. At that point, HP will be
able to point to decades of decline in VMS and declare that the corpse
is to far gone to resurrect (and correctly so).

HP isn't about to sell VMS, because it still generates support revenus.
And since HP is competing for #1 spot in support against IBM, HP would
not sell VMS to IBM since it would cause HP to lose some support revenus
and IBM to gain some.

Furthermore, HP is the only one with an economic interest in that
Itanium thing. IBM wouldn't be interested in some OS tied to a sinking
ship.

Consider that even within the VMS group, we've often seen the arguments
that "we don't need to upgade VAX-VMS because customers aren't
interested in upgrades". Won't be long before they start doing this to
Alpha, after which, they can just argue that the number of IA64
customers is too small to justify firther upgrades. (unless IA64 is put
ouf of its misery beforehand).

This is it guys. There is really no way out of this.
The writing is on the wall.
The train is approaching the end of the line, but it is going so slowly
that when it will hit that "derail" block at the end, it won't make any
noise and nobody will really notice.

On Apr 20, 12:12 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <d36910f6-2fed-4d3e-9c70-fe5c1fd0f>,
> AEF <spamsink2> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 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

I meant the original statement that Bob Koehler was answering. So it's
still apples and oranges on your side. I make no comment on your
comments except that you unfairly attack Bob's answer by assuming he
was addressing some other question. If this is still not clear to you
-- okay, maybe you're just pushing my buttons. Fine. I'm done.

AEF -- UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!
[..]

AEF wrote:

>> > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!


Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than
4 hours at a time.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:39:39 -0700, Bob Koehler
<koehler> wrote:

> In article
> <01b89554-e11f-47cd-9a32-a23966054820>, AEF
> <spamsink2001> writes:
>>
>> 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. :-(
>
> AS/400 was one of a few different attempt by IBM to build a VAX
> killer. While they had some success of there own, none of them
> killed the VAX.
>
Actually it was a continuation of the line that began as the System 3 in
the early seventies, was intended (I think) to provide a continuation for
customers of a very profitable line, and may have incidentally prevented
some of those customers from migrating to VAX. But they were in different
worlds anyway, VAX was seen as a fortran machine and System 3, 34, as RPG
machines.

In article <F0rFqju03nCE>,
koehler (Bob Koehler) writes:
>
> AS/400 was one of a few different attempt by IBM to build a VAX
> killer. While they had some success of there own, none of them
> killed the VAX.

Ahem, VAX is dead as far as I can see (as are DEC),
whereas AS/400 (and IBM) are pretty much alive.

Tom Linden wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:39:39 -0700, Bob Koehler
> <koehler> wrote:
> Actually it was a continuation of the line that began as the System 3 in
> the early seventies, was intended (I think) to provide a continuation for
> customers of a very profitable line, and may have incidentally prevented
> some of those customers from migrating to VAX.

I think that is an important point.

AS/400 may have cost Digital more customers that just those actually
switching from VAX to AS/400.

Arne

In article <01b89554-e11f-47cd-9a32-a23966054820>, AEF <spamsink2001> writes:
>
> 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. :-(

AS/400 was one of a few different attempt by IBM to build a VAX
killer. While they had some success of there own, none of them
killed the VAX.

On Apr 21, 12:50 am, JF Mezei <jfmezeispam> wrote:
> AEF wrote:
> >> > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!
>
> Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than
> 4 hours at a time.

AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

In article <a9e4b7b2-0b86-4ad4-9819-a71e0c9855fc>,
AEF <spamsink2001> writes:
> On Apr 21, 12:50 am, JF Mezei <jfmezeispam> wrote:
>> AEF wrote:
>> >> > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!
>>
>> Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than
>> 4 hours at a time.
>
> AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

Repeating yourself like that is a bad sign!!!

bill

On Apr 21, 6:57 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <a9e4b7b2-0b86-4ad4-9819-a71e0c985>,
> AEF <spamsink2> writes:
>>
>
> Repeating yourself like that is a bad sign!!!
>
> 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>

I can downshift when needed. :-)

AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT

On Apr 21, 12:50 am, JF Mezei <jfmezeispam> wrote:
> AEF wrote:
> >> > AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!
>
> Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than
> 4 hours at a time.

JF,

What's the matter? Are you having trouble SHIFTing into uppercase?

Speaking of which, 4 hours is a problem, but 3 hours is okay?

This reminds me of a Saturday Night Live parody: If you are stuck in
uppercase for more than 24 hours, get on the phone (or something) and
brag about it!

Hey, I can downshift when needed. :-)

AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

AEF wrote:

>> Warning: see a doctor immediatly if you stay in uppercase for more than
>> 4 hours at a time.

> What's the matter? Are you having trouble SHIFTing into uppercase?

No. But I am aware that it is just not polite to remain SHIFTED in
public. I can do all the UPPERCASING I want to in private, but when you
need to exchange thoughts with others with whom you are not intimate, it
just is not very polite to remain in UPPERCASE.



> Speaking of which, 4 hours is a problem, but 3 hours is okay?

I think that this whole 4 hours thing was a great marketing gimmick. It
has become part of contemporary culture, and they probably made it so
prominent in their ads to give the impression that those pills risk
giving you a case of UPPERCASE lasting that long.

> AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!

did you know that ToO mUcH uPpErCaSe MaKeS yOuR eYes Go FunNy ?????

On Apr 22, 3:44 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezeispam> wrote:
> AEF wrote:
>
> No. But I am aware that it is just not polite to remain SHIFTED in
> public. I can do all the UPPERCASING I want to in private, but when you
> need to exchange thoughts with others with whom you are not intimate, it
> just is not very polite to remain in UPPERCASE.
>> I think that this whole 4 hours thing was a great marketing gimmick. It
> has become part of contemporary culture, and they probably made it so
> prominent in their ads to give the impression that those pills risk
> giving you a case of UPPERCASE lasting that long.
>> did you know that ToO mUcH uPpErCaSe MaKeS yOuR eYes Go FunNy ?????

PLONK!

AEF UPPERCASE AND PROUD OF IT!