From: lwin...@bbs.cpcn.com (lwin)
Subject: S/360 public domain stuff?
Date: 2000/07/03
Message-ID: <8jooc0$nks@netaxs.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 641655892
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Originator: r...@bbs.cpcn.com
I understand that much of the software, both application and operating
system, of S/360, was "public domain".
I know my old employer, who had an old S/360, only had to rent a few
specialty software items (like the F level COBOL compiler, the D level was
free).
Question: why was any of this stuff public domain and thus free?
I could understand IBM charging a reduced price for it since much
of it was old and obsolete and not supported, but still, weren't
they entitled to a return on their investment?
Mainframe software today is incredibly expensive, even for old
products.
From: jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: S/360 public domain stuff?
Date: 2000/07/03
Message-ID: <AE5BA95468DF4B14.394F19A06FE4C293.B0FF180036368865@lp.airnews.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 641658539
References: <8jooc0$nks@netaxs.com>
X-Orig-Message-ID: <slrn8lvq69.dc9.jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun Jul 2 20:13:38 2000
Organization: Neosoft (using Airnews.net!)
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX)
Reply-To: jmayn...@conmicro.cx
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
On 3 Jul 2000 00:56:32 GMT, lwin <lwin...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>Question: why was any of this stuff public domain and thus free?
>I could understand IBM charging a reduced price for it since much
>of it was old and obsolete and not supported, but still, weren't
>they entitled to a return on their investment?
When IBM put the OS/360 stuff in the public domain, they didn't think of it
as being of value as a revenue stream. Their business model was centered
entirely on hardware, and software was seen as necessary to make the
hardware go; in fact, they preferred greatly to lease the hardware, not sell
it, thus making the software even less valuable. The return on the
investment came in increased hardware sales and leasing.
When IBM unbundled the software, it was a preemptive move against the
antitrust suit they were soon to be involved in, not really a move to
suddenly start getting revenue from software.
From: d...@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes)
Subject: Re: S/360 public domain stuff?
Date: 2000/07/03
Message-ID: <962590003.847276@shelley.paradise.net.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 641668899
Cache-Post-Path: shelley.paradise.net.nz!unkn...@203-96-144-16.cable.paradise.net.nz
References: <8jooc0$nks@netaxs.com>
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz
X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 962590022 203.96.152.26 (Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:07:02 NZST)
Organization: Daedalus Consulting
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b2 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:07:02 NZST
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
In article <8jooc0$...@netaxs.com>, lwin <lwin...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>Question: why was any of this stuff public domain and thus free?
>I could understand IBM charging a reduced price for it since much
>of it was old and obsolete and not supported, but still, weren't
>they entitled to a return on their investment?
Because at the time, the idea of charging for software was still a
fairly novel idea. In the very earliest days of scientific computing,
you'd have basically bought the machine and nothing else; later a
minimal set of system software (monitor, compilers etc) was required to
run it, so that tended to be part of what was in the package. The idea
of commercial packaged software that didn't come with the computer (be
it from the original manufacturer or from third parties) came later.
The 360 dates to about the transition period. In IBM's case, the
anti-trust issue was also a factor, IIRC.
>Mainframe software today is incredibly expensive, even for old
>products.
Especially if it gets sold to Computer Associates. <insert rant about
the software company that remains my least favorite, despite the best
efforts of Microsoft, here>
-- don
From: jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: S/360 public domain stuff?
Date: 2000/07/03
Message-ID: <C7F682DDE7EA1E20.8AFA4662C41770BF.A4E666289592A014@lp.airnews.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 641670777
References: <8jooc0$nks@netaxs.com> <962590003.847276@shelley.paradise.net.nz>
X-Orig-Message-ID: <slrn8lvtps.de6.jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
NNTP-Posting-Time: Sun Jul 2 21:15:01 2000
Organization: Neosoft (using Airnews.net!)
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: 204.181.96.50
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX)
Reply-To: jmayn...@conmicro.cx
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:07:02 GMT, Don Stokes <d...@news.daedalus.co.nz> wrote:
>Especially if it gets sold to Computer Associates. <insert rant about
>the software company that remains my least favorite, despite the best
>efforts of Microsoft, here>
Yeah. Whatever else you can say about M$, they don't tend to go around
buying the competition every chance they get, turning what's usually good,
well-documented software into crap with totally useless "documentation" and
worse technical support than Novell's...
From: David Rubie <dru...@macquarie.com.au>
Subject: Re: S/360 public domain stuff?
Date: 2000/07/03
Message-ID: <396007A6.6775D848@macquarie.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 641688021
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8jooc0$nks@netaxs.com> <962590003.847276@shelley.paradise.net.nz>
<C7F682DDE7EA1E20.8AFA4662C41770BF.A4E666289592A014@lp.airnews.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Macquarie Bank Ltd.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:07:02 GMT, Don Stokes <d...@news.daedalus.co.nz> wrote:
> >Especially if it gets sold to Computer Associates. <insert rant about
> >the software company that remains my least favorite, despite the best
> >efforts of Microsoft, here>
>
> Yeah. Whatever else you can say about M$, they don't tend to go around
> buying the competition every chance they get, turning what's usually good,
> well-documented software into crap with totally useless "documentation" and
> worse technical support than Novell's...
Computer Associates - where old software goes to die. Look at it this
way, if CA are buying the company, they were going to disappear anyway.
At least CA buying the software is a definite sign to tell your
manager that you should be looking at something else.
dave.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
David Rubie "Your brother's dead.
Macquarie Bank Ltd. Keep dancing!"
dru...@macquarie.com.au (Sean Connery to Kim Basinger,
"Never Say Never Again").
From: jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: S/360 public domain stuff?
Date: 2000/07/03
Message-ID: <38E8DCD71A34D7E8.2E1E21E287805A7B.1AC841334EA5EF56@lp.airnews.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 641726704
References: <8jooc0$nks@netaxs.com> <962590003.847276@shelley.paradise.net.nz>
<C7F682DDE7EA1E20.8AFA4662C41770BF.A4E666289592A014@lp.airnews.net>
<396007A6.6775D848@macquarie.com.au>
X-Orig-Message-ID: <slrn8m0f6p.dkd.jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon Jul 3 02:12:18 2000
Organization: Neosoft (using Airnews.net!)
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX)
Reply-To: jmayn...@conmicro.cx
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 13:25:26 +1000, David Rubie <dru...@macquarie.com.au>
wrote:
>Computer Associates - where old software goes to die. Look at it this
>way, if CA are buying the company, they were going to disappear anyway.
>At least CA buying the software is a definite sign to tell your
>manager that you should be looking at something else.
I only wish that were the case. Tried buying a tape management system
lately?
There were at least two occasions back when I was doing systems work that I
called for support on something, and got "Computer Associates" instead of
the expected response...and the support person was *not* happy about it.