IBM Anti trust action 
Author Message
 IBM Anti trust action

In 1956, the U.S. Govt sued IBM for being in violation of anti trust laws.
They settled with a Consent Decree that required IBM to sell as rent its
equipment and some restrictions on service bureaus operated by IBM.

This Consent Decree is still in force, 40 years later.  IBM seeks to have
it removed.  The Justice Dept says IBM still has monopoly power.

I agree with IBM, and I feel the Consent Decree is totally obsolete.

In 1956 IBM did have a near monopoly of the tabulator and computer business.
Nowadays, IBM is one of many players, and often not even the leading one.

While we speak of "IBM PCs", they are really _Intel_ PCs.  Companies like
Compaq, Gateway 2000, Packard Bell, and Dell (as well as many others)
outsell IBM significantly.  So how is IBM a monopoly?

In the mid range market, IBM has an excellent product, the AS/400, but
has plenty of competition from Sun/SPARC, Hewlett Packard, Tandem, and
powerful Pentium/P6 PC Client Services.  No monopoly here.

In the mainframe market, IBM is the market leader.  However, mainframe
usage is declining as PC Client Servers replace it.  Anyway, IBM
still has mainframe competition from Hitatchi, Cray, Unisys,
Groupe Bull/Honeywell, and Amdahl.  Hardly a monopoly.

Any opinions?  Thanks.



Thu, 16 Apr 1998 02:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action

Quote:

>If anything, the mainframe market is remaining stable, and you can't replace
>a mainframe with a PC Server machine. There's no contest in power or
>storage. Did you realize that the vast majority of the Internet sites are
>IBM mainframes running VM? The large government and educational sites are
>not running on PCs and Suns; They're VM sites.

Umm.. would be nice if it were true.  The last I heard a reliable number,
IBM had sold a total of 25,000 VM licenses *worldwide*. *Total*. And a large
number of those are *NOT* on the Internet.  (Can you see the auditors blow
a gasket if TRW had its big credit databases on the Internet, or if Chase
Manhattan had its S/390s on there? ;)

The latest Internet Domain Survey I have (Jun 95) shows some 6.6 MILLION
hosts.  As a result, a *maximum* of 0.3% of the Internet hosts could be VM
machines.

Hell -- even *BITNET*, which started as a VM/RSCS based net and eventually
grew to over 3,000 nodes, is about 65% Vaxen.

                                Valdis Kletnieks
                                Computer Systems Engineer
                                {*filter*}ia Tech



Sun, 19 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action
I am a CS magor at Angelo State University.  You will be happy to know that
at least at this particular university, A370 is alive and well.  We have to
take 2 semesters of it.  I am in my second.  My question is this.  I have to
write a set of macros, XDUMP, XREAD, XPRINT, as well as macros for standard
and not standard linkages when calling external routines, binary and packed
decimal conversions, etc.  Each semester 30 to 40 people take the course and
3-6 pass.  I would like to be in the 3 to 6 group.  This means I must become
intimate with the language, but the book I have, written by Kudlick, does not
go into enough depth.  I would greatly appreciate any information on
references to affordable (free would really be nice) books or manuels.  Also,
any other news groups where sample code along with explanations is posted
would be nice.  For us, this is the sink or swim class.  It is easily the
most difficult class.  We must write these macros as well as our own
assembler and compiler.  I never thought I would miss C and C++.  Thanks for
your time.


Tue, 21 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action

Quote:


>>In the mainframe market, IBM is the market leader.  However, mainframe
>>usage is declining as PC Client Servers replace it.  Anyway, IBM
>>still has mainframe competition from Hitatchi, Cray, Unisys,
>>Groupe Bull/Honeywell, and Amdahl.  Hardly a monopoly.

>>Any opinions?  Thanks.

>If anything, the mainframe market is remaining stable, and you can't replace
>a mainframe with a PC Server machine. There's no contest in power or
>storage. Did you realize that the vast majority of the Internet sites are
>IBM mainframes running VM?

 Hmm... I'd like to see some numbers backing that up.  I would expect
the "vast majority" of Internet sites would be Sun, or other UNIX boxes.

 Here's my reasoning:

        1) UNIX has been in the TCP/IP business for a *long* time,  IBM
           is a relatively recent player in the TCP/IP world.

        2) ARPANET (the birthplace of the internet) was done on
           UNIX boxs (A good bit of it was with NCR towers.)

        3) I know of no Internet Service Providers (ISPs) using IBM
           mainframes (most use UNIX boxes, several use FreeBSD or
           Linux.)

        4) Many educational sites (in the United States, at least) are
           de-installing their VM systems, running only MVS (I hear
           this a SHARE quite a lot.)

Quote:
>                           The large government and educational sites are
>not running on PCs and Suns; They're VM sites.

  I'd like to believe your statement; but I'd need to see some numbers.

  Also, we need to take into account a definition of "size" for a site.
If a site is on the internet, but only handles 100 bytes/day of
traffic, then, it probably shouldn't count the same as a site that
traffics in a gazillion bytes/day.  

  Also, an astute response would be that "You haven't considered BITNET."
And you're right - I haven't.  I have no feeling for how "large" BITNET
is...

  Maybe a ramdom monte-carlo style sample could do here.  Say, we
randomly pick 500 pingable IP addresses and determine what their machines
are - then we'd have a possible guess at relative machine distributions.

        - Dave Rivers -

--
Yoiks and Away!



Fri, 24 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action

Quote:

>>Did you realize that the vast majority of the Internet sites are
>>IBM mainframes running VM?

The vast majority of BITNET sites may be IBM mainframes running VM,
but BITNET is dinosaur technology.

Quote:
> Hmm... I'd like to see some numbers backing that up.  I would expect
>the "vast majority" of Internet sites would be Sun, or other UNIX boxes.
>        1) UNIX has been in the TCP/IP business for a *long* time,  IBM
>           is a relatively recent player in the TCP/IP world.

Well not _that_ recent.  And didn't AT&T put Unix on a System/370
in the 1970s?

Quote:
>        2) ARPANET (the birthplace of the internet) was done on
>           UNIX boxs (A good bit of it was with NCR towers.)

Looking at my copy of the 1978 Arpanet Directory I see lots of PDP-11s
(less than half running Unix), some TOPS-10, TENEX, TOPS-20, SCOPE,
MULTICS, GCOS, MVT, MVS, VM/370, DOS/360 and others (including one
British OS and one Norwegian OS).  There is no mention of Unix on
anything larger than a PDP-11.

Quote:
>        3) I know of no Internet Service Providers (ISPs) using IBM
>           mainframes (most use UNIX boxes, several use FreeBSD or
>           Linux.)

Most ISPs are run by cowboys on a shoestring.  The key thing about
ISPs is scalability; Unix is scalable in a way that MVS isn't.
Of course if you started from a customer base of 10000 active users
who had paid in advance for a top-quality service, you might find
MVS was the place to start.

Quote:
>>                           The large government and educational sites are
>>not running on PCs and Suns; They're VM sites.
>  I'd like to believe your statement; but I'd need to see some numbers.

I don't believe the statement either.  Universities may use MVS for
payroll but it's not clear what VM's market is other than a cheap way of
running multiple MVS on the same hardware.  The last time I helped set up
a VM system it was as the front end to a Cray.  When we converted the
Cray to Unix, it was obvious that the front end should be Unix too.


Mon, 27 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action

Quote:

> Most ISPs are run by cowboys on a shoestring.  The key thing about
> ISPs is scalability; Unix is scalable in a way that MVS isn't.
> Of course if you started from a customer base of 10000 active users
> who had paid in advance for a top-quality service, you might find
> MVS was the place to start.

I'm not sure what you mean. Scalable down or up? One of the recurring
threads here is ASM370/390 on PCs or lower end equipment.

Scalable up seems to be covered by MVS Sysplex, which includes hardware
support(9674) for a Sysplex Coherent Cache. Is that standard in Unix?

Besides, isn't MVS Open Edition certified as both Unix and Posix compliant?



Mon, 27 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action

Quote:

>> Most ISPs are run by cowboys on a shoestring.  The key thing about
>> ISPs is scalability; Unix is scalable in a way that MVS isn't.

>I'm not sure what you mean. Scalable down or up? One of the recurring
>threads here is ASM370/390 on PCs or lower end equipment.

What is the licence cost for MVS 5 on a PC?  What's the performance
of IBM's TCP/IP for MVS on a PC compared to that under e.g. Linux
or Windows NT?

Quote:
>Scalable up seems to be covered by MVS Sysplex, which includes hardware
>support(9674) for a Sysplex Coherent Cache. Is that standard in Unix?
>Besides, isn't MVS Open Edition certified as both Unix and Posix compliant?

Can you get MVS that is both "Open Edition" _and_ "Sysplex"?


Tue, 28 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action

Quote:

> Besides, isn't MVS Open Edition certified as both Unix and Posix compliant?

MVS Open Edition is fully Posix.1 and Posix.2 compliant.  IBM has announced
that they will apply for Unix branding in OS/390.

--
David Andrews



Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action

Quote:


>> Besides, isn't MVS Open Edition certified as both Unix and Posix compliant?

> MVS Open Edition is fully Posix.1 and Posix.2 compliant.  IBM has announced
> that they will apply for Unix branding in OS/390.

You could probably get some degree of Unix compatibility before then. When
I do a TSO HELP ALLOCATE it shows details for HFS syntax. The announcement
I saw about MVS 5.2.2 stated that it provides 1100 of the "Spec 1170" Unix
functions.

There have been rumours for some time that TSO is being stabilized in
anticipation of Unix style interfaces. I suppose I'll know that has arrived
when TSO HELP shows me MAN pages.

Besides, this is getting away from the primary issue of scalability. Didn't
MVS sysplex provide the major property insurer in Florida with adequate
scalability to ramp up to the mass of claims from Hurricane Andrew without
computer system performance causing processing delays?

BTW I connect to TSO using TCP/IP and TN3270 as either a model 4 or 5
screen(43x80, 27x132) and get GDDM graphics support through GDDM
Xwindows features.



Sun, 03 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 IBM Anti trust action
This is all from memory, so take it with a grain of salt...

I recall seeing an InfoWeek poll, where Linux is running on about 9%
of internet boxes, Sun about 25-35%, and other Unices -- oh, I think
around 15-25%, and Windows (didn't say what kind) at about 14%.

Overall, Unices acounted for >50% of the web sites, even w/o Linux.

Who knows how the survey was conducted -- perhaps the Linuxers were
eager to be counted, and MVS managers were to busy to hear about or
bother with the survey.

But MVS as a web platform?  If your not doing heavy transaction processing,
then why?  Seems prohibitively expensive and dreadfully tedious overkill,
like, you'd have to be a mainframe shop already.



Wed, 06 May 1998 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 14 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Charles Kozierok can't be trusted with comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.cpu (moderated)

2. How can I include in my VI actions like "Undo last action/redo last action"?

3. To trust or not to trust (Re: What is B&D?)

4. SQL 6.5 via ODBC, non trusted

5. Performance of trusted components

6. Assistant (PhD) positions at ETH Zurich, O-O concurrency / proofs / trusted components

7. Pymmetry - Python Trust Metrics

8. ATTENTION OF TRUST

9. NEVER trust a high level language

10. Airlines trust only C++ for flights !

11. Airlines trust only C++ for flights !

12. --== Trust Your Life to this VB App? ==--

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software