Home > Archive > Smalltalk > October 2005 > Smalltalk Irony
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
| Friedrich Dominicus 2005-09-11, 7:56 am |
| jarober@gmail.com writes:
> You have to love the irony here:
>
> 1) IBM drops Smalltalk, handing it to Instantiations:
>
> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/awd...transition.html
Has any one read the text on that link, what are they after?
what does
# Customers have several options to protect their investment in VisualAge Smalltalk
# IBM has formulated a strategy and roadmap to facilitate transition
# IBM and business partner resources, tools, methodologies available to aid transition
# Support extensions available to bridge customers' critical VisualAge Smalltalk applications
# IBM product portfolio provides rich set of follow-on and replacement
technologies
this nonsense mean?
IMHO that just means
- hey you are screwed up if you don't start to rewrite your stuff now
you will be forgotten.
- we do the stuff for you after you send us a few tons of money.
If one follows the first link one find other "buzzword" driven
nonsense
> An evolutionary path from VisualAge Smalltalk to robust
> service-oriented architectures
as if Smalltalk would ot offer that. I assume the want to drive you up
the walls to XML, XSLT and all this "stuff" (tic)
even better a bit downwards
> Plan and navigate successful transition projects by analyzing,
> modernizing, and evolving VisualAge Smalltalk assets as part of
> customers overall business transformation strategy
If you are a customer you better do you "business transformation"
now, but what if you were quite happy with you business as is?
and it's getting even better:
> Reduce labor time, costs, and risk in modernizing Smalltalk
> applications by systematically applying transition automation and
> management tools, technologies, and methodologies
Reduce labor, time and cots by beeing forced into migration?
What did they smoke?
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
| |
| Doug Swartz 2005-09-11, 7:56 am |
|
On 11-Sep-2005, Friedrich Dominicus
<just-for-news-frido@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
> Has any one read the text on that link, what are they after?
Here's my take on what IBM means with these lines.I defeinitely do not
work for, or speak for, IBM.
>
> what does
> # Customers have several options to protect their investment in
> VisualAge Smalltalk
We're from IBM and we're here to help you. We know best.
Go to www.instantiations.com/VAST if you're happy with VisualAge Smalltalk
and your current Smalltalk applications and/or want to build new ones.
Instantiations has already announced a follow-on Smalltalk which is
completely compatible with VisualAge Smalltalk. They are actively working
on new releases with new features.
Go to www.synchronysystems.com if you want to convert your VisualAge
Smalltalk applications to VisualWorks or Java.
> # IBM has formulated a strategy and roadmap to facilitate transition
> # IBM and business partner resources, tools, methodologies available to
> aid transition
IBM has always done a pretty good job of making sure our customers don't
get dropped on the floor when we, as a company, change direction.
Smalltalk doesn't make the millions of dollars per year that make it
worthwhile for IBM to keep it as a product. We've worked with some smaller
firms to give our VAST customers options to either convert your Smalltalk
apps to Java or another Smalltalk, or get great ongoing support for VAST
from a respected Smalltalk vendor.
> # Support extensions available to bridge customers' critical VisualAge
> Smalltalk applications
If you like your VAST applications, but simply refuse to get your
Smalltalk support from any other vendor, IBM will negotiate an agreement
with you for continued VisualAge for Smalltalk support. For a while, but
probably not forever. You won't get any enhancements under this support,
but you will get some level of continued support for new releases of
operatiing systems, etc.
> # IBM product portfolio provides rich set of follow-on and replacement
> technologies
Here at IBM, we love Java. COBOL and C are OK, but we really love Java.
..Net is something we haven't really figured out, and there's a bunch of
other stuff, including Smalltalk, that just doesn't seem to fit very well
into IBM's profit machine.
I hope this helps interpret IBMspeak for you.
Doug Swartz
| |
| Friedrich Dominicus 2005-09-12, 3:57 am |
| Well thanks for that "explanations" ;-), I was quite aware on what
they mean but the kind of writing is really kind of politicians
talk. And what I'm getting  about is saying something is perfect
ok if it just means it's perfect for IBM.
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
| |
|
| Doug - I can't help it. I work for KSC now -- and even though we are /
have been knee deep in smalltalk for over 20 years, we had little (no?)
input on what direction you were taking with VAST. And fyi - we do
migrations too -- so, please expand your list of "who does what".
As to IBM not dropping clients on the floor when technology changes,
that is (in my personal opinion) a load of horse pucky. I am a retired
IBMer. You probably don't remember the "push" for VM on every
mainframe. Or the perfect remote communications device, the 8100. How
about the System 7? Datamaster? Time and attendance recording with
5230? Or the perfect operating system for the PC -- OS/2?
I spent the last 4 years of my career traveling the world spreading the
concept of automating systems management. A good topic with great
payback for customers who truly needed it.
We even had a "strategic" architecture - SystemView. When IBM dropped
the architecture and bought Tivoli, I made a personal decision not to
revisit all of those loyal customers around the world and restate the
case. I have done that enough.
And someday, you will realize that you have too................
Sorry if this is harsh. But the truth is - you can't justify IBMspeak.
It is just the way the IBM wind blows at the minute. Stick around -
it will change.
- jean
| |
| vw_smalltalker 2005-10-02, 7:57 am |
| IBM might not have made money out of Smalltalk, but their experience
with Smalltalk greatly helped them to succeed in Java products.
Smalltalk just paid its price being advanced of its time. Only
something extra-ordinary innovation and timing will change its
fortunes.
jean wrote:
> Doug - I can't help it. I work for KSC now -- and even though we are /
> have been knee deep in smalltalk for over 20 years, we had little (no?)
> input on what direction you were taking with VAST. And fyi - we do
> migrations too -- so, please expand your list of "who does what".
>
> As to IBM not dropping clients on the floor when technology changes,
> that is (in my personal opinion) a load of horse pucky. I am a retired
> IBMer. You probably don't remember the "push" for VM on every
> mainframe. Or the perfect remote communications device, the 8100. How
> about the System 7? Datamaster? Time and attendance recording with
> 5230? Or the perfect operating system for the PC -- OS/2?
>
> I spent the last 4 years of my career traveling the world spreading the
> concept of automating systems management. A good topic with great
> payback for customers who truly needed it.
>
> We even had a "strategic" architecture - SystemView. When IBM dropped
> the architecture and bought Tivoli, I made a personal decision not to
> revisit all of those loyal customers around the world and restate the
> case. I have done that enough.
>
> And someday, you will realize that you have too................
>
> Sorry if this is harsh. But the truth is - you can't justify IBMspeak.
> It is just the way the IBM wind blows at the minute. Stick around -
> it will change.
> - jean
| |
| Marten Feldtmann 2005-10-02, 6:59 pm |
| vw_smalltalker schrieb:
> IBM might not have made money out of Smalltalk, but their experience
> with Smalltalk greatly helped them to succeed in Java products.
>
They make money with Smalltalk (and OS/2), but perhaps not
as much as they want to and they do not believe, that this
will change in the future - that's my interpretation.
Marten
|
|
|
|
|