[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Arne Vajhøj]

Richard Maher wrote:
> "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
>>>> 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?

I don't know. Probably a lot since IP only networks and web services
for interoperability are common requirements.

>> 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.

Relevant point.

How many support contracts do you know will be cancelled due to
missing IPsec support ?

You probably don't know, but how many will you cancel ?

>>  >                       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?

Nothing. But it is you that makes claims so it should be you
substantiating those claims.

>> If you have facts substantiating that then I would expect HP
>> stockholders to be very interested.
> 
> Now HP Stockholders give a shit about VMS?

The stockholders do not care aboyt VMS or HP-UX or Windows or Linux.

But they do care about the profit.

So if you can prove that HP management are not profit maximizing
then they will be interested.

Ofcourse repeating the same thing over and over again without
any hard facts will not convince them of anything.

>>>> 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.

But unless you happen to be a major stockholder in HP, then do
not expect HP management to prove anything to you.

If you want to demonstrate that no IPsec for VMS is a bad
business decision, then you have the ball for showing so.

Arne