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

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Richard Maher wrote:
> 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.
> 

I've used VMS for 22 years without "IPSEC".  I guess I can last a few 
years longer.