[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Richard Maher]

Hi Arne,

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
news:4a7a0d0f$0$306$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk...
> Richard Maher wrote:
> > "Arne Vajhøj" <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
> > news:4a79f32b$0$303$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk...
> >> All that is nice tech talk.
> >
> > And also what's often referred to as facts.
>
> It is the technical facts.
>
> It is not the business facts.
>
> >> The important question is: how many new systems will you order when/if
> >> IPsec is available?
> >
> > About as many as I'll buy when clusters over IP are available, and
certainly
> > more than I've bought since RTR on Linux was made available or WSIT 3.0
or
> > 32 volume shadow sets.
>
> Since those features were not requested by you, then that proves very
> little.
>
> And I don't understand why you expect HP to add a new feature
> if you will not be giving them more revenue due to it.

How much revenue will they receive for Clusters over IP, WSIT 3.0, RTR on
Linux, 128 member shadow-sets? Why are you not protesting this as another
"Arne's piss-poor business plans"?
>
> They run a business.

A business where they receive a lot of support revenue from existing
customers that expect new functionality and industry standard feature
support as well as bug-fixes. Customers that they are driving away year
after year to other OSes to obtain the same industry standard features
unavailable on unobtanium. Yes it is a *business* a business that has been
failing for 15 years; let's turn it around?
>
>  >                       Please, please, please stop your spinning; stop
> > putting up imaginary criterion-hoops that you demand IPsec jump through
that
> > no one else's pet products/projects are forced to endure :-(
>
> What makes you think other projects does not endure requirements
> for profitability?

What makes you think they do? Please show me the "Clusters of IP"
Profitability Requirements Spec! RTR on Linux? WSIT 3.0?
>
> If you have facts substantiating that then I would expect HP
> stockholders to be very interested.

Now HP Stockholders give a shit about VMS? You're having a laugh ain't ya?
>
> >> If that number is high enough then "they" will listen.
> >
> > Here's a number *everyone else in the world* is doing it! But oh no, the
VMS
> > gurus know better don't they? Just look how well they're doing lately
:-(
>
> Implementing IPsec on platform X being profitably does not imply
> implementing IPsec on platform Y being profitably.

Does not imply Y being non-profotable either yet that is your constant
inference for reasons only you are aware of.
>
> Arne

Regards Richard Maher