[Info-vax] IPsec the key to WEB-3

[Richard Maher]

Hi Jf,

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:001cf277$0$19591$c3e8da3 at news.astraweb.com...
> Mr Maher,
>
> VMS is owned by HP.  Unless you have enough money to purchase VMS from
> HP, you just have to accept that HP can do with VMS (and its staff)
> anything it wants.
>
> VMS is of no strategic or profit importance to this Ink/PC company. VMS
> is far from Hurd, currently at the opposite end of the continent, 3 time
> zones away.
>
> The people you have been critizing most in recent weeks are not even at
> the first VP level, and there are many many many layers between them and
> Hurd.
>
> There is no "Digital" people left at any VP level, HP is back to being HP.
>
> This is not like in the Digital days where the VMS group had frequent,
> direct and easy access to Ken Olsen. And in those days, engineering also
> made the decisions about product features because they had close contact
> with customers. HP doesn't have that mentality and is moving VMS away
> from this and towards HP's way of doing business.
>
> Do you really think it was the VMS group that decided to close ZKO ?
>
> I am one who has  criticised many many times the treatment of VMS over
> the years.  But I have come to realise that VMS is beyond the point
> where there is any point in criticising it.
>
>
> Yes it is hard to let go when you have invested so much of your own
> money/time/effort into VMS, especially if you still depend on VMS
> business. If you're not happy with available features on VMS, then move
> on to another product. That is the sad reality which we must accept, no
> matter how hard it is.
>
> Just accept that VMS doesn't count within HP. Just accept that there is
> nobody in any of position of power to defend/promote VMS at the high
> levels.
>
> In the end, for all the criticism I have made of Scott Stallard over the
> years because of his May 7th 2002 memo, it turns out that Stallard has
> been the most honest HP employee towards VMS customers: YES, HP DOES
> EXPECT VMS CUSTOMERS TO EVENTUALLY MIGRATE TO OTHER HP PRODUCTS.
>
> In hindsight, I think that the VMS community has had its head in the
> sand since 2002, hoping HP would start to market VMS and that Stallard's
> statements were not reflective of HP' real intentions.
>
>
> And I have a feeling that this will become brutally clear before the end
> of this year. HP doesn't even care how customers will react. We, the VMS
> community are the only ones who still have a great deal of respect for
> the original VMS engineering group.
>
> So please stop blaming VMS engineering when you know that decisions are
> being made many levels above them.
>

For the sake of argument (and you're probably right anyway) I'm willing to
conceded all of the points you've raised about VMS' future, new
functionality and so on; I could live with that. But following on from the
logic in your argument, I have at least three issues: -

1) IPsec is not some "new" feature I'm asking for! The code is there, it is
working, it is in EAK and has been for years. To make the new decision to
*remove* it from the Road Map requires pro-activeness, meetings, expenditure
and most of all malice. "Doing nothing" is simply letting it go ahead.
2) If there are no new features for VMS then why are we still paying people
to actively develop RTR and WSIT when no one (except omx) is using either of
them? What level do you think decisions like these are being made at?
3) I've talked about the relative cost of software products (those being
lavishly funded and those not) which goes totally against your "VMS will get
absolutely *no* more features/products" decree, but I want to discuss at
length the "Those employees that are going and what they contribute, as
opposed to those employees that are staying" comparison, and I've recently
been made angry enough to do it. But more on that elsewhere. .  .

If you kill IPsec you deny TCP/IP Services (and a huge slice of the
installed-base) any possible place in an integrated future. The
customer-base simply can't take any more. If they're running MultiNet or
TCPware then great, but many aren't and they're not gonna get the funding to
switch from TCP/IP Servcies just for this. Look, IPsec *is* that important
to the future! Don't you want to see a whole lot of laptops moving from the
LAN to the wireless net seemlessly yet all through a rock-solid VPN ? Why
aren't we showcasing Android (or other handheld) access to VMS servers via
MOBIKE cleverness?

Please, IPsec has to be a given. It'll cost more to kill than to release.
Can all you System Managers out there just read about what it can do for you
for Firewalling if nothing else. Please put pen to paper and tell them you
want IPsec long before you want a *fifth* web-browser on VMS.

Regards Richard Maher