HP, which pre-announced relatively happy results a couple of weeks ago when it said it was buying 3Com, came in exactly on target with earnings of $2.4 billion, or 99 cents a share, up 14%, on revenues of $30.8 billion, down 8.4% year-over-year from $33.6 billion.

And the company reiterated that it should do $29.6 billion to $29.9 billion this quarter and earn 90 to 92 cents a share. Its full-year outlook is for $118 billion-$119 billion and EPS of $4.25-$4.35.

In a statement CEO Mark Hurd, who still finds the economy “challenging” despite signs of recovery and projections of growth next year, said services, aided by HP’s EDS acquisition and so up 8% to $8.9 billion, drove the record profits but Hurd-style cost cutting had an awful lot to do with it too.

He expects to outperform the market because of HP’s scale and range of offerings. But then he also expects to make further cuts on the services side already down 19,000 jobs while still hiring on the sales side.

Although services increased 8% to $8.9 billion in Q4 all of HP’s units were off big time.

PCs were down 12% to $9.9 billion despite an 8% increase in shipments; printers were down 15% to $6.5 billion; software was off 16% to $967 million; and servers and storage were down 17% to $4.2 billion for total annual revenues of $114.6 billion, down 3% year-over-year.

HP, like everybody else, has been having its biggest problems in EMEA, Europe actually, where Q4 revenues were off 17% to $11.7 billion. The Americas were only off 3% to $13.6 billion and Asia was down a merely 1% to $5.4 billion. Hurd said European uncertainties were holding HP back from tickling its 2010 projections more. Europe’s performance, he said, wasn’t consistent enough to call a bottom there. Things are too spotty.

HP revenues were up ~20% in China; the other BRIC countries were down 4%. The 3Com acquisition is expected to burnish HP’s revenues out of China. HP is currently getting 40% of revenues from the US and China.

HP’s printer gold mine, which has been looking a bit tarnished the last few quarters, underperformed for want of goods in Q4. It was up 1.4% last quarter on the earnings side and experienced a 20% drop in shipments but Hurd is expecting double-digit growth this quarter even if inventory hasn’t quite caught up yet.

HP claims to be tops in the US enterprise PC market, Dell’s sweet spot, with double-digit year-over-year share gains despite the absence of revival.

The company has boosted its share buy-back budget to a hefty $12 billion, up 3x.

The United States Senate waded into the Oracle-Sun imbroglio Tuesday.

Fifty-nine senators from both sides of the aisle led by one-time presidential hopeful John Kerry (D-Mass) and perennial presidential pretender Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) signed a letter to the European Commission asking it to wrap up its investigation of the Oracle-Sun merger as soon as possible pleading Sun’s precarious financial position and its inability to continue to employ thousands of people endlessly under current conditions.

The senators – there are only a hundred of them – tried reasoning proportion with the EC saying, “It is our understanding the Commission is concerned about competition in the database software market. However, we have been informed by Sun Microsystems that their subsidiary, which competes in this specific market, generates only €17 million in revenue and that the same market has competitors with capitalizations of tens of billions of Euros.”

In an explanatory statement accompanying the letter Kerry said, “The deal between Oracle and Sun was announced in April and seven months have gone by without a resolution. Continued delay of the European Commission’s decision on clearance threatens thousands of American jobs, so we felt compelled to ask for a speedy resolution. The EC is within its sovereign rights to set the rules for operation in its market, but with our Department of Justice having made a compelling case that the merger does not pose a threat to competition, it is fair to ask the EC for the basis on which a delay on decision making is warranted and to make a decision one way or the other.”

Hmm. “One way or the other.”

Odd thing about the delay is that Oracle, which has complained to just about everybody about the EC’s foot-dragging, just asked for and got more time ostensibly to develop its arguments.

What use six more days will be to Oracle is a question. The regulator seems intent on blocking the merger unless Oracle divests MySQL, which – come to find out from the senators’ letter only generates a pissant $25 million in revenue, half of what was generally supposed when Sun bought the thing for – be still, my heart – a frigging billion dollars.

Senator Hatch’s statement was a bit testier and mirrors more accurately American public option.

“I have become increasingly concerned about the growing body of evidence that foreign regulatory agencies are unfairly using their review processes to impede the business of American corporations,” he said. “This transaction has been thoroughly reviewed by the United States Department of Justice, which has decided to take no action. Therefore, I hope the EC will quickly conclude their investigation into this transaction.”

The Senate’s letter is the second time Washington has commented on the EC’s intransigence on the Oracle-Sun merger.

On November 9, the day Sun got the EC’s reportedly 155-page statement of objections, the Justice Department issued a statement saying that it had looked at the MySQL issue and concluded that “the proposed transaction is unlikely to be anticompetitive.”

There are plenty of open source and proprietary databases, it said, and so the consumer is unlikely to be harmed. Plus there’s a large community of MySQL developers and users with the expertise to maintain, improve and support it.

Such a thing seems to make no never mind with the EC, which thinks Oracle will adopt a licensing and development strategy that prevents MySQL from cannibalizing its revenues even though hasn’t happened yet and they’re in two separate markets, as Oracle has maintained.

The DOJ’s tone was civil – and although its statement hints – as many people surmise – that the EC is bent on a political agenda having little to do with antitrust issues, relations between the two bodies have yet to degenerate into the prickly tension that marked their affairs after the EC blocked the GE-Honeywell merger a few years back.

Still with each passing day the EC, widely seen as a victim of misguided principle, makes itself a bigger target for the critics who see it as a protectionist haven for every malcontent competitor who can’t cut it in the marketplace; who wonder what bright boy made it judge, jury and executioner; who are uncomfortable with its 16th century Star Chamber-like level of secrecy and its guessing game set of rules; and who question its objectivity, which was recently criticized by its own overseer after reviewing the Intel antitrust case.

European lobbyist Florian Mueller, who’s working for MySQL creator Monty Widenius on opposing Oracle’s acquisition of MySQL – though both men made a killing when Sun bought MySQL for a ludicrous billion dollars – claims the Senate gambit isn’t going to work and that the “revenues argument is pointless.”

“Twitter had zero revenues last year but no one could argue it wasn’t a major force in the market,” Mueller said, suggesting that the 59 senators should send Larry Ellison a letter asking him to commit to divesting MySQL so he can close the transaction quickly.

“Oracle could have a deal any day of the week by giving up MySQL,” Mueller said.

However, John Briggs, an antitrust expert and an old Brussels hand, told Reuters the pressure from the US senators could affect the EC’s decision. In his opinion it “will have a hard time ignoring this.”

OK, so other than Thanksgiving why did Oracle really want more time?

Apparently to bring pressure like it just did with the senators.

And it got the hearing that was scheduled for November 25, the day before Thanksgiving, shifted to December 10 according to Reuters.

Apparently Oracle could have asked for more than six days. Apparently it was the one who asked for the six-day grace period. The God of the Book of Genesis created the world in six days. Does Larry actually expect to change the EC’s mind in an extra six days? God, people say, had an easier job.

Apparently Oracle blew through a November 20 deadline to come up with a remedy. And it now has at least until November 30 to come up with one and avoid an automatic three-week extension of the EC’s final decision, whose deadline is now January 27 instead of January 19. So if Oracle doesn’t come up with an acceptable solution we could be talking about a final decision on February 17, close to 10 months after Sun and Oracle cut their deal. Meanwhile, the delay is said to be costing Sun a $100 million a month.

Former Ellison lieutenants swear that Larry ain’t as perturbed about the EC’s delay as Oracle lets on, that he ain’t gonna pay the nominal $7.4 billion ($9.50 a share) he offered for Sun (nominal less the money Sun has in the bank) and that he’s going to renegotiate the price down complaining that Sun has been materially damaged by the EC’s dicking around.

They also say that Ellison could give a hoot about MySQL – it would be nice to have and he doesn’t want a serious competitor to have it – but it’s not the reason he’s interested in Sun. Java, Sparc, Solaris and the Sun installed base is what he’s after.

It’s hard to imagine Ellison backing off from this fight but, if he wearies of it, he might offer to dump MySQL into an open source project or foundation like, say, Eclipse, or maybe he just needs six days to cut a handshake deal with a company that won’t do much at all with MySQL and distancing Oracle from the licensing control that seems to have the EC so perturbed.

It can’t control who Oracle might spin it off to.

By way of revenge, if it goes to a player, odds are Oracle will then do whatever’s possible to stomp that sucker flat – even if MySQL isn’t a direct competitor of Oracle’s database.

That said here’s the Kerry-Hatch letter:

Chargé d’Affaires Angelos Pangratis

Acting Head of Delegation

Delegation of the European Commission to the United States

2300 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

Dear Chargé d’Affaires Pangratis:

As fellow government officials committed to the principle that competition is the cornerstone of healthy economic growth, we would like to take this opportunity to share our thoughts with you as to the proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc. by Oracle Corporation.  In addition, due to Sun Microsystems’ deteriorating financial condition and the possible negative effect on employment of the company’s workforce, we respectfully request the European Commission expedite the completion of its investigation into this transaction.

The United States Department of Justice, after an intensive investigation, closed its inquiry into this transaction without taking any action. In fact, the Justice Department did not find documentary evidence that this acquisition would harm competition. We recognize that the European Commission has a sovereign right to thoroughly investigate transactions where corporations utilize the European Union’s marketplace. Further, it is our understanding the Commission is concerned about competition in the database software market. However, we have been informed by Sun Microsystems that their subsidiary, which competes in this specific market, generates only €17 million in revenue and that the same market has competitors with capitalizations of tens of billions of Euros.

Unfortunately, Sun Microsystems’ financial position has become more precarious and the Commission’s inquiry has continued. Some have raised concerns over the company’s ability to continue to employ its thousands of workers. Accordingly, we respectfully request the European Commission complete its investigation of this transaction as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

See http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=320244 for all the signatures.

US Senate Pushes EC on Oracle-Sun Merger
Azure Gets its First Commercial ERP App
There’s Good News & There’s Bad News: Gartner
No Real Recovery with Europe Still in the Tank: HP
CSC Signs Record Cloud Deal with Royal Mail
Adobe Fiddles with its Web Apps
Zoho Fields HR Software
Mozilla Opens its Books
Corel To Go Private Again
Windows 7 Selling
Microsoft CFO Quits
IBM Could Reinvent Java
Sun Fields Cloud Desktop for K-12
EMC Reorgs
Canada & Australia Smile of Microsoft-Yahoo
Brocade Claims It’s Not For Sale
EC Drops Qualcomm Antitrust Probe
LinkedIn Opens its API
Third World Meets the Mainframe
CA & BMC To Support Salesforce.com
Insider Trading’s Poster Boy Seeks To Suppress Wire Taps
Second Set of Charges against Satyam 10 Runs 55,000 Pages
US Senate Pushes EC on Oracle-Sun Merger
Azure Gets its First Commercial ERP App
There’s Good News & There’s Bad News: Gartner
No Real Recovery with Europe Still in the Tank: HP
CSC Signs Record Cloud Deal with Royal Mail
Adobe Fiddles with its Web Apps
Zoho Fields HR Software
Mozilla Opens its Books
Corel To Go Private Again
Windows 7 Selling
Microsoft CFO Quits
IBM Could Reinvent Java
Sun Fields Cloud Desktop for K-12
EMC Reorgs
Canada & Australia Smile of Microsoft-Yahoo
Brocade Claims It’s Not For Sale
EC Drops Qualcomm Antitrust Probe
LinkedIn Opens its API
Third World Meets the Mainframe
CA & BMC To Support Salesforce.com
Insider Trading’s Poster Boy Seeks To Suppress Wire Taps
Second Set of Charges against Satyam 10 Runs 55,000 Pages

Google says it’s working with a bunch of unidentified “top OEMs” to create a Chrome notebook based on a Google hardware reference architecture that will hit market around this time next year in time for the holidays.

It expects the widgets to change the basic computing model by transferring everything to the cloud.

Google accepts that such a device won’t suit all use-cases but it should suit those, particularly youngsters, who spend most of their time on the web, to a “T.”

Google will position the thing as a “companion device” to one’s more robust and conventional laptop or desktop.

It means to tackle laptops and desktops somewhere down the road.

Google said its reference architecture, whose components are still apparently being spec’d, won’t support hard drives, only solid-state memory, and will demand a somewhat larger form factor than today’s notebooks to provide for a full-sized keyboard and touchpad. Its connectivity will be Wi-Fi.

Google disclosed its plans Thursday in a Chrome OS webcast, where it demoed the thing and open sourced the code so developers can play with it and contribute to the project.

Remember, Google’s never developed an operating system before. It’s big and it’s hard. It’s also a matter of winning mind share and an ecosystem.

The open source contingent will reportedly work with the same source tree as Google developers. What with may be problematical since Chrome OS doesn’t work on conventional machines; virtualized is a possibility. Google will have a list of validated hardware.

Chrome OS, whose watchwords are “speed, simplicity and security,” is supposed to make the Internet instantly accessible like a TV – Google is currently trying to get its boot time to under seven seconds – and – in a challenge to Microsoft – every application it runs will be a web app.

It promises no software install, maintenance or management since the software will be in the cloud along with all the data, which is synced to the cloud, making offline use possible via cached data.

All data, Google said, including local data, is encrypted by a random number algorithm. And, unlike your conventional operating system the root file systems is read-only.

Provided the cloud is functioning, it’s supposed to solve the security problems of the traditional PC. All applications are treated as a hostile, Google said, and locked down in a “security sandbox, separated from both each other and the operating system.

Chrome OS looks like the Chrome browser with application tabs at the top of the screen. And Google talks about Chrome OS as a browser.

Google declined to discuss the cost of the reworked x86 netbooks, begging off that it was up to the hardware makers and component costs can change in a year. Apparently it’s shooting for current price levels. It suggested that other browser makers could develop Chrome-style packages of their own.

Google also begged off discussions of an app store.

The widgetry supports Flash and where possible open source drivers and the usual slew of storage devices and mice. Android apps, not being web-based, won’t work on Chrome OS. Chrome OS apparently doesn’t print yet but it’s supposed to before it comes out.

Chrome the browser, meanwhile, now in its twentieth update is close to launching on the Mac and Linux. Google clocked the Windows version as 39x times on JavaScript than IE. It claims 40 million users.

IBM Turns the Screws on zPrime
by Maureen O’Gara
IBM System z CTO and resident spook Mark Anzani recently sent an IBM mainframe customer a letter meant to scare it into seeing the boogeyman under its bed and make sure it doesn’t use Neon Enterprise Software’s zPrime technology to reduce its mainframe costs.
The customer wants to buy IBM’s Specialty Engines for its mainframes, the so-called zIIP and zAAP processors that IBM created to accelerate and run DB2 and Java on. IBM doesn’t want to fill the order unless the customer promises in writing not to use the chips to run the workloads that the zPrime software can offload to the things. It will save the customer millions of dollars in CP cycles and IBM doesn’t like that.
Neon claims zPrime can offload more than half a mainframe’s workloads to the specialty processors, including IMB, DB2, CICS, TSO/ISPF and batch workloads, cutting 20% of a user’s annual hardware and software costs under conventional use pricing because the chips incur no usage charges. The savings would extend to third-party software.
The letter, which is here http://openmainframe.org/storage/Customer_Letter_on_Authorized_Use_of_IBM_Specialty_Engines.pdf and isn’t very long, says:
“As we have reason to be concerned you intend to utilize Specialty Engines to process unauthorized workload (workload beyond that for which the Specialty Engine was created and marketed by IBM), which would constitute a breach of the license, we will fulfill the specialty engines per your order only if you provide reasonable assurances you will comply with our agreements. Please confirm that you will operate these engines in compliance with your existing agreements with IBM, and specifically including that you will not run any workload on these specialty engines other than those workloads expressly designated by IBM as eligible and authorized to run on these processors.”
The customer forwarded the letter to Neon, which only released zPrime on June 30.
Neon CEO Lacy Edwards had heard that IBM was asking users verbally for such an undertaking but this was the first time he had seen it written down.
He said it means that IBM wants to close the glaring loophole that it left opened, and that Neon is exploiting, by changing the terms of the existing contract its customers signed after the fact.
As mainframe users know, this is not the first time that IBM has changed hallowed terms and conditions to ensure its mainframe cash flow.
Since ending its undertaking with the European Commission and consent decree with the Justice Department a decade ago, IBM has forced users to upgrade to its newer mainframe operating systems; ceased maintaining anything but 64-bit hardware; stopped providing the critical interface information it used to supply to plug-compatible manufacturers (PCMs); and has in general erected insurmountable barriers for anyone to enter the IBM-compatible mainframe market.
For instance, when a start-up called Platform Solutions Inc (PSI) threatened to take away some of IBM’s mainframe business with its Amdahl-derived, z/OS-running Itanium system, IBM changed its sacred, long-standing RAND patent policy and dropped the words “or equivalent” from its z/OS license so the operating system could only run on its proprietary System z machines.
But getting back to the problem at hand, Anzani’s latest letter pointed the customer to a posted copy of the IBM License Agreement for Machine Code that he said governs the use of Specialty Engines and two product announcements letters also on IBM’s web site that he said summarize the eligible workloads.
Lawyers for both Neon and the mainframe customer reviewed Anzani’s letter, the IBM License Agreement for Machine Code and the product announcements and concluded that IBM’s bluffing.
There’s nothing in any of the documents quoted by the IBM CTO that restricts what a user can run on the specialty processors. The IBM license, the lawyers told Edwards, has no bearing on Neon; zPrime isn’t in violation.
The lawyers are so certain of their position that one of them reportedly told the mainframe customer it might as well go ahead and give IBM the assurances it wants because it won’t impact its use of zPrime. It can keep on using it.
The customer reportedly isn’t going to do that however. Instead it’s planning on having a showdown with IBM and going belly-to-belly with the titan. What will happen is anybody’s guess. There’s a big gap between saying you’re not scared of IBM and spitting in its Big Blue eye.
IBM’s an old hand at the art of intimidation. A generation ago ex-IBMer Gene Amdahl, who dared to go into competition with IBM with his own mainframe company, coined the term “FUD” to describe the fear, uncertainty and doubt that IBM used to dominate the industry. Thirty-five years later and nothing much has changed.
Neon users to a man are currently afraid to admit publicly that they have zPrime in their shop for fear of the repercussions such a confession could have even if they know that stripping away the veil of secrecy will lessen IBM’s hold over them.
Gen Xs and Ys, most of whom don’t know what real fear is, have flipply applied the term to Microsoft. Microsoft never made grown men afraid the way IBM has.
IBM has sent the first monthly bills to customers that are in production with zPrime and they’re a lot lower than they used to be. Edwards has had reports that IBM is now demanding to do audits and suspending annual Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) negotiations. It’s threatening, he said, to send bills that cover its shortfall and customers are reportedly telling IBM it has no right to do that.
On July 10, a few days after Neon went to market, Anzani wrote a letter to all mainframe customers suggesting zPrime wasn’t legal and warning them “regarding any claimed ability to reduce IBM Program license charges by off-loading workloads to Specialty Engines beyond the eligible workload identified by IBM. IBM’s applicable pricing terms governing Eligible Workloads on zIIPs and zAAPs will not apply to zIIPs and zAAPs running anything other than IBM-specified eligible workloads. Therefore, customers should not anticipate any reduction (and may actually experience an increase) in the IBM Program License Charges associated with non-Eligible Workloads which may be off-loaded to IBM Specialty Engines, since the non-Eligible Workload running will cause the software running on the Specialty Engine to be chargeable. IBM cannot comment on the potential impact on the software charges from other third-party software providers.” (See here http://blogs.datadirect.com/media/IBM%20position%20document.pdf for the whole letter.)
What’s really odd about this situation is IBM’s brass in the face of a fresh antitrust investigation by the Justice Department, since it seems what it’s doing is a clear case of abusing its monopoly, price gouging and requiring customers of its operating system to use only IBM hardware, a serious antitrust no-no and something IBM is specifically forbidden to do under the lingering terms of its now-dissolved 1956 consent decree with the United States government.
IBM’s actions are reminiscent of behavior that has landed other tech giants in antitrust hot water.
Intel just paid AMD $1.25 billion so it wouldn’t have to face the threat of treble damages in the antitrust suit that AMD brought against it – and that was after getting hit with a $1.45 billion antitrust fine from the European Commission. It still may have to face action by the US Federal Trade Commission, the sister agency to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.
And one can argue that Microsoft incurred the wrath of the European Commission for less and paid handsomely for it.
Ironically, IBM demanded Microsoft provide reasonable and non-discriminatory interoperability access to its technology but won’t do that itself.
Edwards says IBM’s schoolyard bullying merely compensates Blue for its own deep-seated insecurity and that zPrime has got IBM spooked. Since IBM can’t hit Neon with the patent claims it made against PSI before IBM buried the upstart by buying it, zPrime is the mainframe establishment’s best chance at changing its future, he contends.
IBM’s posturing didn’t stop Neon from upgrading zPrime a few days ago.
Version 1.2 is supposed to simplify and streamline the offloading of programs and applications to specialty processors, while providing greater control in selecting which application workloads are shifted to the things.
Neon says a new Enablement Console lets users select the applications and programs they want to move for processing on zIIPs and zAAPs during the critical and costly peak periods.
And a Language Environment (LE) Initialization Exit automatically enables all LE-compliant applications, which means almost all the legacy mainframe applications around.
Richard Ptak, principal analyst at Ptak, Noel and Associates, says using zPrime doesn’t sacrifice functionality or disrupt mainframe environments in any way,
Neon currently claims 14 companies are now in production with zPrime and that since the software was announced nearly 50 organizations around the world – including some of the world’s largest corporations – have tested, documented and validated its cost savings.
On average, it says, these companies have been able to offload 90% of their Information Management System (IMS) application processing; 90% of their batch application processing; 80% of their DB2 application processing; 75 % of their TSO/ISPF application processing; and 45% of their Customer Information Control System (CICS) applications.
Edwards says, “This incredibly rapid adoption reflects how much companies – and how many of them – want to reduce the high costs of mainframe computing.”
This piece appeared first on OpenMainframe.org at http://openmainframe.org/featured-articles/ibm-turns-the-screws-on-zprime.html.

by Maureen O’Gara

IBM System z CTO and resident spook Mark Anzani recently sent an IBM mainframe customer a letter meant to scare it into seeing the boogeyman under its bed and make sure it doesn’t use Neon Enterprise Software’s zPrime technology to reduce its mainframe costs.

The customer wants to buy IBM’s Specialty Engines for its mainframes, the so-called zIIP and zAAP processors that IBM created to accelerate and run DB2 and Java on. IBM doesn’t want to fill the order unless the customer promises in writing not to use the chips to run the workloads that the zPrime software can offload to the things. It will save the customer millions of dollars in CP cycles and IBM doesn’t like that.

Neon claims zPrime can offload more than half a mainframe’s workloads to the specialty processors, including IMB, DB2, CICS, TSO/ISPF and batch workloads, cutting 20% of a user’s annual hardware and software costs under conventional use pricing because the chips incur no usage charges. The savings would extend to third-party software.

The letter, which is here and isn’t very long, says:

“As we have reason to be concerned you intend to utilize Specialty Engines to process unauthorized workload (workload beyond that for which the Specialty Engine was created and marketed by IBM), which would constitute a breach of the license, we will fulfill the specialty engines per your order only if you provide reasonable assurances you will comply with our agreements. Please confirm that you will operate these engines in compliance with your existing agreements with IBM, and specifically including that you will not run any workload on these specialty engines other than those workloads expressly designated by IBM as eligible and authorized to run on these processors.”

The customer forwarded the letter to Neon, which only released zPrime on June 30.

Neon CEO Lacy Edwards had heard that IBM was asking users verbally for such an undertaking but this was the first time he had seen it written down.

He said it means that IBM wants to close the glaring loophole that it left opened, and that Neon is exploiting, by changing the terms of the existing contract its customers signed after the fact.

As mainframe users know, this is not the first time that IBM has changed hallowed terms and conditions to ensure its mainframe cash flow.

Since ending its undertaking with the European Commission and consent decree with the Justice Department a decade ago, IBM has forced users to upgrade to its newer mainframe operating systems; ceased maintaining anything but 64-bit hardware; stopped providing the critical interface information it used to supply to plug-compatible manufacturers (PCMs); and has in general erected insurmountable barriers for anyone to enter the IBM-compatible mainframe market.

For instance, when a start-up called Platform Solutions Inc (PSI) threatened to take away some of IBM’s mainframe business with its Amdahl-derived, z/OS-running Itanium system, IBM changed its sacred, long-standing RAND patent policy and dropped the words “or equivalent” from its z/OS license so the operating system could only run on its proprietary System z machines.

But getting back to the problem at hand, Anzani’s latest letter pointed the customer to a posted copy of the IBM License Agreement for Machine Code that he said governs the use of Specialty Engines and two product announcements letters also on IBM’s web site that he said summarize the eligible workloads.

Lawyers for both Neon and the mainframe customer reviewed Anzani’s letter, the IBM License Agreement for Machine Code and the product announcements and concluded that IBM’s bluffing.

There’s nothing in any of the documents quoted by the IBM CTO that restricts what a user can run on the specialty processors. The IBM license, the lawyers told Edwards, has no bearing on Neon; zPrime isn’t in violation.

The lawyers are so certain of their position that one of them reportedly told the mainframe customer it might as well go ahead and give IBM the assurances it wants because it won’t impact its use of zPrime. It can keep on using it.

The customer reportedly isn’t going to do that however. Instead it’s planning on having a showdown with IBM and going belly-to-belly with the titan. What will happen is anybody’s guess. There’s a big gap between saying you’re not scared of IBM and spitting in its Big Blue eye.

IBM’s an old hand at the art of intimidation. A generation ago ex-IBMer Gene Amdahl, who dared to go into competition with IBM with his own mainframe company, coined the term “FUD” to describe the fear, uncertainty and doubt that IBM used to dominate the industry. Thirty-five years later and nothing much has changed.

Neon users to a man are currently afraid to admit publicly that they have zPrime in their shop for fear of the repercussions such a confession could have even if they know that stripping away the veil of secrecy will lessen IBM’s hold over them.

Gen Xs and Ys, most of whom don’t know what real fear is, have flipply applied the term to Microsoft. Microsoft never made grown men afraid the way IBM has.

IBM has sent the first monthly bills to customers that are in production with zPrime and they’re a lot lower than they used to be. Edwards has had reports that IBM is now demanding to do audits and suspending annual Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) negotiations. It’s threatening, he said, to send bills that cover its shortfall and customers are reportedly telling IBM it has no right to do that.

On July 10, a few days after Neon went to market, Anzani wrote a letter to all mainframe customers suggesting zPrime wasn’t legal and warning them “regarding any claimed ability to reduce IBM Program license charges by off-loading workloads to Specialty Engines beyond the eligible workload identified by IBM. IBM’s applicable pricing terms governing Eligible Workloads on zIIPs and zAAPs will not apply to zIIPs and zAAPs running anything other than IBM-specified eligible workloads. Therefore, customers should not anticipate any reduction (and may actually experience an increase) in the IBM Program License Charges associated with non-Eligible Workloads which may be off-loaded to IBM Specialty Engines, since the non-Eligible Workload running will cause the software running on the Specialty Engine to be chargeable. IBM cannot comment on the potential impact on the software charges from other third-party software providers.” (See here  for the whole letter.)

What’s really odd about this situation is IBM’s brass in the face of a fresh antitrust investigation by the Justice Department, since it seems what it’s doing is a clear case of abusing its monopoly, price gouging and requiring customers of its operating system to use only IBM hardware, a serious antitrust no-no and something IBM is specifically forbidden to do under the lingering terms of its now-dissolved 1956 consent decree with the United States government.

IBM’s actions are reminiscent of behavior that has landed other tech giants in antitrust hot water.

Intel just paid AMD $1.25 billion so it wouldn’t have to face the threat of treble damages in the antitrust suit that AMD brought against it – and that was after getting hit with a $1.45 billion antitrust fine from the European Commission. It still may have to face action by the US Federal Trade Commission, the sister agency to the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.

And one can argue that Microsoft incurred the wrath of the European Commission for less and paid handsomely for it.

Ironically, IBM demanded Microsoft provide reasonable and non-discriminatory interoperability access to its technology but won’t do that itself.

Edwards says IBM’s schoolyard bullying merely compensates Blue for its own deep-seated insecurity and that zPrime has got IBM spooked. Since IBM can’t hit Neon with the patent claims it made against PSI before IBM buried the upstart by buying it, zPrime is the mainframe establishment’s best chance at changing its future, he contends.

IBM’s posturing didn’t stop Neon from upgrading zPrime a few days ago.

Version 1.2 is supposed to simplify and streamline the offloading of programs and applications to specialty processors, while providing greater control in selecting which application workloads are shifted to the things.

Neon says a new Enablement Console lets users select the applications and programs they want to move for processing on zIIPs and zAAPs during the critical and costly peak periods.

And a Language Environment (LE) Initialization Exit automatically enables all LE-compliant applications, which means almost all the legacy mainframe applications around.

Richard Ptak, principal analyst at Ptak, Noel and Associates, says using zPrime doesn’t sacrifice functionality or disrupt mainframe environments in any way,

Neon currently claims 14 companies are now in production with zPrime and that since the software was announced nearly 50 organizations around the world – including some of the world’s largest corporations – have tested, documented and validated its cost savings.

On average, it says, these companies have been able to offload 90% of their Information Management System (IMS) application processing; 90% of their batch application processing; 80% of their DB2 application processing; 75 % of their TSO/ISPF application processing; and 45% of their Customer Information Control System (CICS) applications.

Edwards says, “This incredibly rapid adoption reflects how much companies – and how many of them – want to reduce the high costs of mainframe computing.”

This piece appeared first on OpenMainframe.org.

IBM Turns the Screws on zPrime
Chrome Netbooks a Year Off
Azure Goes Live Next Year
Beta, Beta, Beta
Things Get Better; Dell Tanks Anyway
Chinese Court Orders Windows Off the Market
OK, Now Imagine Distributed Data Grids in the Cloud
Vexed with Cisco HP Goes to Voltaire
SAP & Microsoft Cut Anti-Oracle Pact
AT&T To Go Cloud-to-Cloud with Amazon
NTT Uses OpSource To Compete with AT&T’s Cloud
Google Apps Gets Power Panel, Single Sign-On
Amazon Backs Zeus
IBM Offers a Little Blue Insight
Cisco Throws More Money at Tandberg
Salesforce To Let Companies Chatter Away
Madoff Programmers Busted
Intel Invests in Joyent’s Cloud
Infobright & Talend Combine on Free Virtual Data Warehouse
Intel & AMD Called in a Mediator
Egenera Changes CEOs Again
The Fabled Gphone Reportedly Lives
RightScale To Support Azure
No Intel License for Globalfoundries
Yahoo’s Wasting Away
Intel Ups Dividend
AMD Tops Top500
‘It’s the Net Cost, Stupid’: Dell
Galleon Doubled Down on ATI Ahead of AMD Buy
AIR 2, Flash Player 10.1 in Beta
Egypt Applies for First Non-Roman Web Domain

IBM Turns the Screws on zPrime

Chrome Netbooks a Year Off

Azure Goes Live Next Year

Beta, Beta, Beta

Things Get Better; Dell Tanks Anyway

Chinese Court Orders Windows Off the Market

OK, Now Imagine Distributed Data Grids in the Cloud

Vexed with Cisco HP Goes to Voltaire

SAP & Microsoft Cut Anti-Oracle Pact

AT&T To Go Cloud-to-Cloud with Amazon

NTT Uses OpSource To Compete with AT&T’s Cloud

Google Apps Gets Power Panel, Single Sign-On

Amazon Backs Zeus

IBM Offers a Little Blue Insight

Cisco Throws More Money at Tandberg

Salesforce To Let Companies Chatter Away

Madoff Programmers Busted

Intel Invests in Joyent’s Cloud

Infobright & Talend Combine on Free Virtual Data Warehouse

Intel & AMD Called in a Mediator

Egenera Changes CEOs Again

The Fabled Gphone Reportedly Lives

RightScale To Support Azure

No Intel License for Globalfoundries

Yahoo’s Wasting Away

Intel Ups Dividend

AMD Tops Top500

‘It’s the Net Cost, Stupid’: Dell

Galleon Doubled Down on ATI Ahead of AMD Buy

AIR 2, Flash Player 10.1 in Beta

Egypt Applies for First Non-Roman Web Domain

MySQL co-developer Monty Widenius, said to have the business sense of a child by MySQL’s old management, and his hired help Florian Mueller, who made a killing on his MySQL stock when Sun lost its mind and bid a billion dollars for the Scandinavian company, paying 20 times revenues, are now insisting that Oracle should be made to divest MySQL so it can take over a fading Sun.

They would like it to happen before December 17 when Sun has it’s next shareholders meeting, a date that’s a month ahead of when the European Commission is supposed to make its final decision and a few weeks after Oracle’s November 25 hearing before the EC.

Monty and Florian, who claim the purchase puts Oracle in a conflict-of-interest position since to them Oracle and MySQL are interchangeable, are whispering in the ear of the EC, which is proposing to block the acquisition – a move that would probably kill Sun although Monty and Florian are laboring under the delusion that it could somehow soldier on and safe MySQL.

Florian says divestiture is the EC’s preferred resolution since “clean structural remedies” are better than ineffectual behavioral ones and forking – which appears to be everybody’s safety net – is not an option – it’s not “commercially viabl,” he says. A forked MySQL wouldn’t have the revenue base to fund development and wouldn’t have a brand name.

After weeks of asking Florian who he thinks should acquire MySQL he comes up with the name Novell, a company inducted into open source by a loan from IBM that enabled it to buy SUSE – IBM was afraid Red Hat would turn into another Microsoft – and whose open source credentials have been tarnished by its financially dependent relationship on Microsoft.

Of course just because Florian mentions Novell doesn’t mean that’s what he really means but, on the face of it, it does suggest that Oracle is right in pinning the blame for its current quandary on IBM.

Florian and Monty maintain that Oracle – no matter what it says about MySQL not being competitor – is spooked by the high-end Linux-based competitive challenge of the revenue-deprived open source MySQL since – in their opinion Oracle and MySQL go head-to-head – and are encouraging regulators in Russia, China and Switzerland to go down the same path as the European Commission and challenge Oracle’s acquisition in what amounts to a gang bang.

Observers suggest there’s another mystery reason for all this, but say they don’t know what it is. IBM of course does have a heavy investment in Java, which would also pass to Oracle.

With an EC gun to its head, it’s unlikely Oracle could fetch what Sun foolishly paid for MySQL and Oracle certainly doesn’t want to create another competitor.

Ken Thompson and Rob Pike, a couple of the revered old soldiers who wrote Unix, Plan 9 and Inferno at Bell Labs – and programming languages like Limbo and B, without which C probably wouldn’t exist – have come up with an experimental new programming language called Go that Google, their current refuge, open sourced Tuesday under a BSD-style license.

If it catches on, it would be the first major systems language to emerge in a decade.

One of the small Go team compares it to Java, calling it “performant but garbage collected” and “vastly more enjoyable to code in.”

Go’s primary attribute appears to be that it’s fast. It reportedly compiles to machine code very quickly thanks to a couple of Plan 9-beholden compilers.

Google says “Go combines the development speed of working in a dynamic language like Python” – Google does dote on Python – “with the performance and safety of a compiled language like C or C++. Typical builds feel instantaneous; even large binaries compile in just a few seconds. And the compiled code runs close to the speed of C.”

Go has been in the works for the last two years, but has only been a full-time project at Google since the middle of last year.

It was born, the Go team says, “out of frustration with existing languages and environments for systems programming. Programming had become too difficult and the choice of languages was partly to blame,” a statement that sounds very much like Ken Thompson.

“One had to choose either efficient compilation, efficient execution, or ease of programming; all three were not available in the same mainstream language. Programmers who could were choosing ease over safety and efficiency by moving to dynamically typed languages such as Python and JavaScript rather than C++ or, to a lesser extent, Java.”

“Go,” says one of the team’s FAQs, “is an attempt to combine the ease of programming of an interpreted, dynamically typed language with the efficiency and safety of a statically typed, compiled language. It also aims to be modern, with support for networked and multi-core computing. Finally, it is intended to be fast: it should take at most a few seconds to build a large executable on a single computer. To meet these goals required addressing a number of linguistic issues: an expressive but lightweight type system; concurrency and garbage collection; rigid dependency specification; and so on. These cannot be addressed well by libraries or tools; a new language was called for.”

Go descends from C in syntax and borrows declarations and packages from the Pascal/Modula/Oberon family and concurrency from Limbo, but it’s still a completely new language, its creators say, meant to escape the “bookkeeping, repetition and clerical work” of current languages as well as their “clutter and complexity” while still being “sophisticated.”

It’s object-oriented but without the type hierarchies.

Although it’s meant to make writing the servers and other software Google uses internally a lot easier, Go isn’t mature enough for large-scale production use yet. Its development team is experimenting with it as a candidate server environment and the server behind http://golang.org is a Go program.

Since Thompson’s involved, one would assume that the project’s called Go after the oriental board game that’s sort of like chess. He worked on Belle, the first chess program to get a master’s rating.

See http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html and http://golang.org/doc/go_lang_faq.html#top.

Unix Co-Creator Writes New Open Source Programming Language for Google
Intel to Industry: Nothing’s Changed
MySQL + Novell??
MontaVisa Sells Out Cheap
Cisco Takes on Microsoft Exchange
HP’s Flush
EC-Oracle Standoff Degenerates to Name Calling
Amazon To Expand into Asia
VMware Takes Another Whack at Desktop Virtualization
Thieves-Spotting Technology Moves to the Cloud
Vordel To Manage Multiple Clouds
Skytap Claims Real-Time Collaboration in the Cloud
Adobe Cans Another 9% of its Workforce
ScaleMP’s Talking BIG Clouds
Sun Revs Sun Ray
Microsoft Cuts Broad Cloud Pact with Taiwan’s No. 1 Telco
Sun Revenues Drop 25%
Microsoft Buys Eclipse Widgetry
Rackspace Cloud Biz Doubles
Zend Teams with Varien
Oracle Upgrades its Open Source Database
Novell Does Aboutface in SCO Case
Abu Dhabi Means To Become a Chip Contender
Tandberg Holds Cisco Up for More Money
Bright To Peddle SUSE
Daddy, Where Did Windows 7 Come From?
Doesn’t Anybody Look Things Up Anymore?
Amuse Yourself

Unix Co-Creator Writes New Open Source Programming Language for Google

Intel to Industry: Nothing’s Changed

MySQL + Novell??

MontaVisa Sells Out Cheap

Cisco Takes on Microsoft Exchange

HP’s Flush

EC-Oracle Standoff Degenerates to Name Calling

Amazon To Expand into Asia

VMware Takes Another Whack at Desktop Virtualization

Thieves-Spotting Technology Moves to the Cloud

Vordel To Manage Multiple Clouds

Skytap Claims Real-Time Collaboration in the Cloud

Adobe Cans Another 9% of its Workforce

ScaleMP’s Talking BIG Clouds

Sun Revs Sun Ray

Microsoft Cuts Broad Cloud Pact with Taiwan’s No. 1 Telco

Sun Revenues Drop 25%

Microsoft Buys Eclipse Widgetry

Rackspace Cloud Biz Doubles

Zend Teams with Varien

Oracle Upgrades its Open Source Database

Novell Does Aboutface in SCO Case

Abu Dhabi Means To Become a Chip Contender

Tandberg Holds Cisco Up for More Money

Bright To Peddle SUSE

Daddy, Where Did Windows 7 Come From?

Doesn’t Anybody Look Things Up Anymore?

Amuse Yourself

Microsoft’s browser rivals aren’t satisfied with the tentative “ballot screen” settlement that the company came to with the European Commission, which would offer all its European users a chance to download a rival browser.

Google, Mozilla and Opera want changes made.

According to the New York Times, Mozilla doesn’t like the idea of the top five browsers by market share in Europe would appear in a row alphabetically from left to right. That would put Apple’s Safari first. Mozilla doesn’t think that’s fair on the theory it would give Safari – not your first thought for an Internet Explorer substitute – an advantage; it wants them to appear randomly.

Then Opera, whose complaints started the EC’s bundling investigation despite the fact that IE has been losing share, doesn’t like the idea that the page bears a Microsoft logo and that its standard warning appears when people go to download non-Microsoft software.

It’s unclear what Google objects to but all comments have to be in by November 10.

The rivals will also reportedly push for the EC to survey consumer use of the ballot screen more frequently than two years from now.

© 2012 LinuxGram Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha