"IBM is slow" claim
Locked
 
|
Given that we've been waiting for that mythical, promised open
sourcing of Netrexx for a few years now, I wonder what people on this list feel of the statement below, which I found on the Net: ////// I was still running CP/M-based Z80A systems during much of that [Dos/Windows] period. Yes, I am that old. I had a bunch of FORTRAN code that was still making me money years after I had written it in 1978 or so. In fact, I pretty much missed the whole Windows phenomenon entirely, because I jumped from CP/M directly to Symbolics LISP machines, and from there to Sun-2,3,4 workstations before landing solidly in the Linux camp. I should warn you that I've had two substantial experiences with IBM: one was bad, and the other was very bad. In each case the experiences centered around the fact of having purchased a Linux cluster from Big Blue. I can probably capture the essence of both experiences as follows: * IBM is *expensive*. * IBM support of their Linux clusters is slow, and ineffective, and *expensive*. * IBM wants to sell you stuff., like CMS, their own cluster management software. They don't want you to use free software, like Open PBS. * IBM is big, and cumbersome, and slow, and *expensive*. If it weren't for Microsoft, I'd hate IBM. ////// So, is this just the exception that confirms the rule, or maybe is there some truth about IBM's glacial movement? I will now "duck and cover" ;-). In fact this was just an excuse to ask if we're going to see Open Netrexx during 2011 or if we'll be better off marking the calendars for 2012 or 2013. In the words of John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead" FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
I have trouble trying to understand what is the problem: is there some secret that IBM does not want us to know. What do they gain by freezing NetRexx. We can use it but cannot possibly expend any effort building with it --- What on earth do they have to gain by refusing to release it. Could it be they don't own it??? Could it be there is a serious problem with it . . . What is their purpose. What do they have to gain -- or forfiet --- by this frozen state.
Robert L Hamilton Richardson, Texas On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote: Given that we've been waiting for that mythical, promised open _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Fernando Cassia-2
Fernando,
having worked for IBM for some time (as an external advisor - I left early this year) I can tell you that, within certain settings, IBM can act very quickly and perform amazing feats. The focus on cost cutting due to the crisis and accompanying personnel movement have made this not one of them. Also, I am worried, like you are (but not so worried that these thoughts come to my head at 06:09 in the morning) about NetRexx losing its momentum because of the large gap in development and the slow pace of open sourcing. I am not sure if we have set some kind of record here; I remember the open sourcing of Java (the whole of it) taking a long time also. I have good hopes for this year, and like last year, the Rexx Language Symposium announcement is slightly late also for this reason, amongst many others. In the meantime I am having fun running NetRexx on the big iron, learning about JZOS and interaction with the traditional MVS workload world. On the smaller iron, I am studying how to integrate NetRexx application builds with Maven. There is no reason to think we cannot use our favourite language because it is not open yet. I see a slight danger of the open sourcing being fairly anticlimactic when it eventually happens. We must be certain that activities are planned and community building succeeds. You can be a part of that. best regards, René Jansen. On 25 mrt 2011, at 06:09, Fernando Cassia wrote: > Given that we've been waiting for that mythical, promised open > sourcing of Netrexx for a few years now, I wonder what people on this > list feel of the statement below, which I found on the Net: > > ////// > I was still running CP/M-based Z80A systems during much of that > [Dos/Windows] period. Yes, I am that old. I had a bunch of FORTRAN > code that was still making me money years after I had written it in > 1978 or so. In fact, I pretty much missed the whole Windows > phenomenon entirely, because I jumped from CP/M directly to Symbolics > LISP machines, and from there to Sun-2,3,4 workstations before landing > solidly in the Linux camp. > > I should warn you that I've had two substantial experiences with IBM: > one was bad, and the other was very bad. In each case the experiences > centered around the fact of having purchased a Linux cluster from Big > Blue. I can probably capture the essence of both experiences as > follows: > > * IBM is *expensive*. > * IBM support of their Linux clusters is slow, and ineffective, > and *expensive*. > * IBM wants to sell you stuff., like CMS, their own cluster > management software. They don't want you to use free software, like > Open PBS. > * IBM is big, and cumbersome, and slow, and *expensive*. If it > weren't for Microsoft, I'd hate IBM. > > ////// > > So, is this just the exception that confirms the rule, or maybe is > there some truth about IBM's glacial movement? > > I will now "duck and cover" ;-). In fact this was just an excuse to > ask if we're going to see Open Netrexx during 2011 or if we'll be > better off marking the calendars for 2012 or 2013. > > In the words of John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead" > > FC > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
René,
Sorry to hear the NetRexx open source effort no longer has its RexxLA champion *in* the trenches inside big blue. That surely won't help accelerate the process in any way... Nobody pushing the millstone within IBM nowadays?? - Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions. -----Original Message----- From: René Jansen <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:11:35 To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] "IBM is slow" claim Fernando, having worked for IBM for some time (as an external advisor - I left early this year) I can tell you that, within certain settings, IBM can act very quickly and perform amazing feats. The focus on cost cutting due to the crisis and accompanying personnel movement have made this not one of them. Also, I am worried, like you are (but not so worried that these thoughts come to my head at 06:09 in the morning) about NetRexx losing its momentum because of the large gap in development and the slow pace of open sourcing. I am not sure if we have set some kind of record here; I remember the open sourcing of Java (the whole of it) taking a long time also. I have good hopes for this year, and like last year, the Rexx Language Symposium announcement is slightly late also for this reason, amongst many others. In the meantime I am having fun running NetRexx on the big iron, learning about JZOS and interaction with the traditional MVS workload world. On the smaller iron, I am studying how to integrate NetRexx application builds with Maven. There is no reason to think we cannot use our favourite language because it is not open yet. I see a slight danger of the open sourcing being fairly anticlimactic when it eventually happens. We must be certain that activities are planned and community building succeeds. You can be a part of that. best regards, René Jansen. On 25 mrt 2011, at 06:09, Fernando Cassia wrote: > Given that we've been waiting for that mythical, promised open > sourcing of Netrexx for a few years now, I wonder what people on this > list feel of the statement below, which I found on the Net: > > ////// > I was still running CP/M-based Z80A systems during much of that > [Dos/Windows] period. Yes, I am that old. I had a bunch of FORTRAN > code that was still making me money years after I had written it in > 1978 or so. In fact, I pretty much missed the whole Windows > phenomenon entirely, because I jumped from CP/M directly to Symbolics > LISP machines, and from there to Sun-2,3,4 workstations before landing > solidly in the Linux camp. > > I should warn you that I've had two substantial experiences with IBM: > one was bad, and the other was very bad. In each case the experiences > centered around the fact of having purchased a Linux cluster from Big > Blue. I can probably capture the essence of both experiences as > follows: > > * IBM is *expensive*. > * IBM support of their Linux clusters is slow, and ineffective, > and *expensive*. > * IBM wants to sell you stuff., like CMS, their own cluster > management software. They don't want you to use free software, like > Open PBS. > * IBM is big, and cumbersome, and slow, and *expensive*. If it > weren't for Microsoft, I'd hate IBM. > > ////// > > So, is this just the exception that confirms the rule, or maybe is > there some truth about IBM's glacial movement? > > I will now "duck and cover" ;-). In fact this was just an excuse to > ask if we're going to see Open Netrexx during 2011 or if we'll be > better off marking the calendars for 2012 or 2013. > > In the words of John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead" > > FC > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 7:11 AM, René Jansen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On the smaller iron, I am studying how to integrate NetRexx application builds with Maven. I have no experience with Maven but would love to see NetRexx integrated with Netbeans. Sort of a cross-platform VX-Rexx (which ran under OS/2), able to create Java bytecode. Maybe your effect would be a step into that direction? http://maven.apache.org/netbeans-module.html FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
Hello there,
I'm in active negotiations here with IBM Austria for a couple of projects. As a matter of fact, IBM is *changing* it's attitude, very *fast*. Hence, those OLD stories mentioned below may have been truth in the past, bur are NOT true at present. I do have no news about NetRexx going open source, however. Would also be interested to get at least a short Update from Rene, what the status is. As a matter of fact,I'm introducing here NetRexx to IBM Vienna ... :-) Thomas. =============================================================================== Am 25.03.2011 07:06, schrieb Robert Hamilton: I have trouble trying to understand what is the problem: is there some secret that IBM does not want us to know. What do they gain by freezing NetRexx. We can use it but cannot possibly expend any effort building with it --- What on earth do they have to gain by refusing to release it. Could it be they don't own it??? Could it be there is a serious problem with it . . . What is their purpose. What do they have to gain -- or forfiet --- by this frozen state. --
Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.com) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)
www.thsitc.com www.db-123.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
Hi Rene,
have seen your reply after mine... Sorry... Some 1841 mails have been in my in-box due to 1 week absence of the Internet... Frank question to the ibm-netrexx community: Would it help to make ReyC open source in advance of IBM NetRexx?? *OR* will you all be confused ???? Thomas. ================================================================================================ Am 25.03.2011 11:11, schrieb René Jansen: > Fernando, > > having worked for IBM for some time (as an external advisor - I left early this year) I can tell you that, within certain settings, IBM can act very quickly and perform amazing feats. The focus on cost cutting due to the crisis and accompanying personnel movement have made this not one of them. Also, I am worried, like you are (but not so worried that these thoughts come to my head at 06:09 in the morning) about NetRexx losing its momentum because of the large gap in development and the slow pace of open sourcing. I am not sure if we have set some kind of record here; I remember the open sourcing of Java (the whole of it) taking a long time also. > > I have good hopes for this year, and like last year, the Rexx Language Symposium announcement is slightly late also for this reason, amongst many others. In the meantime I am having fun running NetRexx on the big iron, learning about JZOS and interaction with the traditional MVS workload world. On the smaller iron, I am studying how to integrate NetRexx application builds with Maven. There is no reason to think we cannot use our favourite language because it is not open yet. > > I see a slight danger of the open sourcing being fairly anticlimactic when it eventually happens. We must be certain that activities are planned and community building succeeds. You can be a part of that. > > best regards, > > René Jansen. > > On 25 mrt 2011, at 06:09, Fernando Cassia wrote: > >> Given that we've been waiting for that mythical, promised open >> sourcing of Netrexx for a few years now, I wonder what people on this >> list feel of the statement below, which I found on the Net: >> >> ////// >> I was still running CP/M-based Z80A systems during much of that >> [Dos/Windows] period. Yes, I am that old. I had a bunch of FORTRAN >> code that was still making me money years after I had written it in >> 1978 or so. In fact, I pretty much missed the whole Windows >> phenomenon entirely, because I jumped from CP/M directly to Symbolics >> LISP machines, and from there to Sun-2,3,4 workstations before landing >> solidly in the Linux camp. >> >> I should warn you that I've had two substantial experiences with IBM: >> one was bad, and the other was very bad. In each case the experiences >> centered around the fact of having purchased a Linux cluster from Big >> Blue. I can probably capture the essence of both experiences as >> follows: >> >> * IBM is *expensive*. >> * IBM support of their Linux clusters is slow, and ineffective, >> and *expensive*. >> * IBM wants to sell you stuff., like CMS, their own cluster >> management software. They don't want you to use free software, like >> Open PBS. >> * IBM is big, and cumbersome, and slow, and *expensive*. If it >> weren't for Microsoft, I'd hate IBM. >> >> ////// >> >> So, is this just the exception that confirms the rule, or maybe is >> there some truth about IBM's glacial movement? >> >> I will now "duck and cover" ;-). In fact this was just an excuse to >> ask if we're going to see Open Netrexx during 2011 or if we'll be >> better off marking the calendars for 2012 or 2013. >> >> In the words of John Maynard Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead" >> >> FC >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > -- Thomas Schneider (www.thsitc.com) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)
www.thsitc.com www.db-123.com |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |