Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com IBM obviously "lost money" in giving out free software; I don't think they charged even for distribution tapes or documentation even in the 1970s after unbundling; if it was a legacy free item, you got the package for free. (And IIRC, some unbundled fee products were still quite cheap, esp as compared to today's software prices.) Anyway, the free software was IBM's 'loss leader' to build the utility value of its computers. IBM unbundled this partly in response to anti- trust pressures, says Watson in his autobio. IBM obviously "lost money" in giving out free software; I don't thinkthey charged even for distribution tapes or documentation even in the1970s after unbundling; if it was a legacy free item, you got thepackage for free. (And IIRC, some unbundled fee products were stillquite cheap, esp as compared to today's software prices.)Anyway, the free software was IBM's 'loss leader' to build the utilityvalue of its computers. IBM unbundled this partly in response to anti-trust pressures, says Watson in his autobio. -- virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970 bundling back then is somewhat like flat-rate internet & cellphonepackages ... they immensively simplified things for the customer... although machines were leased prior to unbundling ... processors had"meter" (like home utilities). customers had standard 1st shift monthlycharge and additional for use about straight 1st shift. in that sense, alot of the bundling were similar to programs ... packaged deals for"leased" equipment. not long after unbundling, much of the install basewas converted from lease to sales (some unflattering comments thatmotivation was outgoing executive got big bonus because of the revenuespike, but it reduced future ongoing revenue). misc past postsmentioning 23jun69 unbundling announcementhttp://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#unbundlebesides software, it wasn't unusual for there to be a "team" of SEs("system engineers") assigned at bigger customers; nearly always onsiteat the customer to provide customer with whatever assistance was neededfor using the computer. With unbundling, these SEs services also became"charged for". One of the big issues was lots of SE education had beenas sort of journeyman/trainee part of these SE "teams" onsite atcustomer installations. With unbundling, nobody was able to figure outwhat to do with "trainee" SEs (since if they were doing anything atcustomer site, it had to be a billable line item). The "HONE" systemswere several internal (virtual machine) CP67 datacenters, initially forproviding "Hands-On" online access for branch office SEs ... being ableto practice their operating system skills. misc. past posts mentioningHONE:http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#honeone of the big (leased/metering) issues for offering online, 24x7timesharing service was programming tricks to minimize meter runningwhen there was no activity (default was that meter would still run ifsystem was active/available ... even if it wasn't executing). early on,off-shift use was extremely sporadic ... but it wasn't likely toincerase ... unless the system was available, on-demand, 7x24 ... butrecoverable charges for the light, sporadic use wasn't sufficient torecover hardware billing charges (having the meter only run when therewas actual use went a long way to being able to deploy 7x24 onlineoffering). some past posts about early 7x24 online commercialtimesharing serviceshttp://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#timesharethe company was able to make the case with the gov. that "kernel"software was still free (necessary for the hardware to operate).the company then had the failed Future System effort ... some pastpostshttp://www.garlic.com/~lynn/submain.html#futuresysDuring Future System (which was going to completely replace 360/370 andbe radically different), 370 efforts that were considered possiblycompetitive were killed off. Then with the demise of FS, there was madrush to get items back into the 370 hardware & software pipelines. Thelack of 370 products is also considered reason that clone processorswere able to get market foothold. With getting new 370 items back intothe product pipelines and the clone processor competition, there wasdecision made to transition to charging for kernel software.I had been doing 360/370 stuff all during the FS period (and makinguncomplimentary comments about the FS activity). some old email (one ofmy hobbies was providing packaged production enhanced operating systemsfor internal datacenters):http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430With the demise of FS and made rush to get out 370 products, variouspieces that I had been doing were selected to ship to customers. Some ofthe items selected were to be packaged as (kernel add-on) "ResourceManager" product. My "Resource Manager" then got selected to be guineapig for starting to charge for kernel software. Misc. past postsmentioning scheduling and resource managementhttp://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#fairsharefor a few years there was "base" (free) operating system (kernel)offerings with optional "charged-for" kernel software (that was growingin size) ... until the cut-over was made to charge for all kernelsoftware (and kernel product packaging collapsed back to singleoffering). About this time there was transition to "object code only"... even tho software had started being charge-for with 23jun69announcement, source was still available (for some produsct shipped withfull source with maintenance being done as source changes as standardfeature). "object code only" eliminated source availability (as standardoption).