[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Richard Maher]

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dLmdnT9UvJ9kF-TXnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d at giganews.com...
> Richard Maher wrote:
> > Hi Arne,
> >
> > "Arne Vajhøj" <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
> > news:4a78f243$0$307$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk...
> >> Richard Maher wrote:
> >>> Hi Jan-Erik, Alan,
> >>> "Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing"
<winston at SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
> >>>> Virtualization was scheduled for 8.4, which was waiting for Tukwila.
At
> > the
> >>>> Tech Forum, users were pretty clear that they wanted some kind of
> > updated which
> >>>> included virtualization without having to wait for Tukwila, and
> > management
> >>>> appeared to have heard that request.  (Then the VMS sig mailing list
> > had a
> >>>> surprising-to-me discussion aobut what a pain and expense qualifying
> >>>> intermediate versions was, so the message got somewhat muddled, but
as
> > far as
> >>>> I know there's an intention  to get the non-Tukwila-support pieces
> > originally
> >>>> slated for 8.4 out the door in some shorter timeframe.)
> >>> Excellent. So there'd be absolutely *no* reason why IPsec could not be
> > added
> >>> to the kit in the intervening 4-6 months then, yes?
> >>>
> >>> What a marvellous opportunity to take full advantage of this God-send
of
> > a
> >>> grace period!
> >> I am sure they could.
> >
> > I cannot conceive of a single technological or time-sensitive obstacle.
> >> But they do not seem as interested in IPsec as you are.
> >
> > I depends on who your "they" refers to. (And it certainly would be nice
to
> > have them out from under the bed or the closet for a change. Come on -
come
> > out and take a bow you treacherous bastards! You others all love your
> > bootcamps, love-ins, and tech-update days as a way to keep "up to date"
with
> > what's going on, so who exactly are Arne's "they"?)
> >
> > But, you see, I too have a "they". They were responsible for: -
> > 1) Getting the IPsec development budget approved and management onboard
> > 2) Allocating the many thousands of man hours an millions of dollars to
> > bring a workable product to fruition by august 2007: -
> > http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/products/ipsec/
> > 3) Scheduling the initial release for 8.3 and then falling/slipping back
to
> > 8.4 on the road map for *years*!
> > 4) Applying for and receiving "IPV6 Ready" status for TCP/IP Services
for
> > VMS: -
> > http://www.ipv6ready.org/phase-2_approved_list
> > A status that should now be relinquished by any organization of
integrity.
> > 5) Understanding that *every* other OS on the planet from Linux,
Windows,
> > HP/UX, NSK, MVS, Android, iPhone is supporting at least one version of
> > IPsec!
> > 6) Understanding that HP, SUN, Microsoft, IBM, Apple have all jumped on
the
> > IPsec bandwagon years ago
>
> HP?  Really?

Yes really! HP/UX has had IPsec for years. NSK now also has it, (and I'm not
sure which Linux varieties run on hP hardware but Red Hat, Debian, and SuSe
all support IPsec, and obviously Windows (for about 10 years and IPv4 as
well as IPv6))

> Remember that HP now owns VMS and is responsible for
> maintenance, standards compliance and all that stuff.

HP doesn't have a problem with IPsec. Especially as it's already there and
just needs shipping, but if you know that it was someone above HP/*VMS* that
made the decision due to some corporate philosopy then do tell! No. This was
a local VMS decision made by a local VMS knob-head.
>
> <snip>

Regards Richard Maher