[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Richard Maher]

Hi Arne,

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
news:4a7a419e$0$306$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk...
> 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.

Hold on! Just a minute ago I thought I heard someone say: -
"Implementing [a product] on platform X being profitably does not imply
implementing [a product] on platform Y being profitably."

I tell you what: -
"If you have facts substantiating that then I would expect HP
stockholders to be very interested."

Does your hypocrisy and spin know no bounds?
>
> >> 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 ?

How many VMS licenses do you know will be sold due to WSIT 3.0 support ?

 You probably don't know, but how many did you buy ?

But then you were a big fan of BridgeWorks also and now an even bigger fan
of gSOAP, so I guess we just can't have too many costly SOAP developments
that no one is using on VMS, just not the pittance necessary for the
productionizing of IPsec. Yes, I think I'm beginning to see your business
acumen shining through.

>
> >>  >                       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.

For the last bloody time let's get this right! These are the facts, the
business facts. Please do try to pay attention: -
1) The decision to support IPsec on VMS was made many years ago
2) The justifications made, the shareholders appeased, resources allocated
3) The product was developed and delivered to EAK production level
4) Missed 8.3 but was on the 8.4 RoadMap (and customer plans) for years

The inertia-laden "do nothing" KSOR path was to release IPsec with 8.4. To
*cancel it* involved someone making claims that it was a bad decision.
Claims that not only have gone unsubstantiated, but also claims that the
"they" involved are too embarassed to make public or disclose to any user
representation. Show me any HP employee happy to be associated with such a
decision.

But here's a question for you, what convinces you that the same team of
vacilating HP/VMS knob-heads have no intention of supporting IPsec in a
version after 8.4? You chose to ignore many facts in my previous IPsec posts
not least of which was it being a *mandatory* requirement for IPv6
compatibility. (And our big lie of "IPv6 Ready" status.) So does it
automatically become a wise decision in Arne world after 8.4 is that what
the shareholders are looking for? Will you be up in arms at the waste of
license-payers money?

IPv6 Compliance Arne; tell us again why VMS doesn't need it!
>
> >> 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.

Profit that will only be enhanced by retaining the customer base that's
left. Again, don't listen to me listen to SUN, IBM, Apple, HP, Microsoft,
Google. Show me one industry pundit that is slagging IPsec off.

But you seem very concerned about IPsec's ability to impact profit and
shareholders Arne, maybe Process Software could benefit greatly from your
insights. After all I'm sure Arne's Enterprises makes Process Software look
like one bloke and his barrow. Go on, tell them how stupid they are for
supporting IPsec on VMS (and have done for years -well done guys!) Instead I
see them doing quite nicely thanks very much. With HP/VMS driving IP
customers into their open arms I bet they've been able to wether the
recesion pretty well. Tell us agin how the likes of the Hunter Goatleys and
Richard Whalen are wasting their time like some knob-heads weaving baskets.
You know it all Arne; do go on. . .
>
> So if you can prove that HP management are not profit maximizing
> then they will be interested.

Yes, I know of many over-paid self-serving twats in HP/VMS that are still
being paid to do nothing while productive talented engineers were given the
chop. But perhaps more on that later.
>
> Ofcourse repeating the same thing over and over again without
> any hard facts will not convince them of anything.

And of course just because Arne says something does not make it true. I have
provided many hard facts in this thread and many others about what is
happening with IPsec in the free world outside of the sheltered workshop
that is HP/VMS. The fact that your agenda prevents you from acknowledging
them is no concern of mine or the system managers that are gagging for
IPsec.
>
> >>>> 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.

The sad truth is that HP/*VMS* have never felt the need to prove anything to
anyone, least of all customers. There arrogance knows no bounds as they
continue to do whatever they damn well please whenever they damn well feel
like it.
>
> If you want to demonstrate that no IPsec for VMS is a bad
> business decision, then you have the ball for showing so.

Can you please explain to me how you would go about informing HP management
that VMS customers are so isolated, idiosyncratic, and down right peculiar
that they are the *ONLY* OS on the planet not to require IPsec or full IPv6
support? Then (and this is the best bit) tell me how you'd break the news to
them about your business-plan that involved spending many man years and tens
of millions of dollars to develope a product to the stage of release and
then saying "Nah, I never really liked it". What sort of incompetent fucking
morons do you really think they're going to take you for? That's why no one
wants to be associated with the stink of this decision, and why news of the
decision has never escaped HP*VMS* management's Local Shop.

How does pissing 5 years of IPsec development up against the wall affect
your precious profitability Arne? Hmm?

Be honest Arne; some dickhead's just walked in one day and said "We need to
be seen to be saving X dollars; give me something!". So not wanting to give
up their pet projects of perhaps "Clustering over IP" they offered up IPsec
:-( Now it cost more to unbundle it than it saved but that's not the point
is it?

>
> Arne

Regards Richard Maher

PS. Over 100 respondants to Goebels' web-poll was more than I've seen for
any crap you've been touting.