[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Arne Vajhøj]

Richard Maher wrote:
> "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?

It is neither of those that customers want interoperability products
for their VMS system.

>>>> 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 ?

None.

But I did not ask for it.

I will assume that those asking for it actually did buy or kept systems.

> 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,

If you remember back a couple of weeks, then you would know that
they ar eused.

>>>>  >                       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.

I have no idea when or if IPSsec for VMS will show up.

I know that you implicit assumption that cost ends at delivery
of EAK is wrong.

> 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!

I don't know if IPv6 is needed for VMS at this time.

I would be surprised if it were. IPv6 is not that widely used.

>>>> 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.

See above about X and Y.

> 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.

If I remember correctly then Process has IPsec in one of
their TCP/IP stacks.

I am sure that they must have done some type of business analysis when
deciding to do that.

It is not obvious to me that doing IPsec in a third party stack N
years ago being profitable implies that adding the same by HP today
would be profitable.

And I don't think the engineers would care much. They implement
and support the code. How it sells is the business peoples problem.

>> 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.

Not much proof in that statement.

>> 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.

No. But I have made very few statements except for obvious things that
HP cares about profit - for the IPsec stuff I have mostly been
asking questions.

 >                                                                 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.

You have so far not been able to show a single dollar in extra
revenue by implementing IPsec.

I don't care much whether IPsec for VMS arrives tomorrow or
in 15 months or never.

But I am telling you than until you can show dollars for HP,
then your quest for IPsec will be uphill.

>> 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.

No businesses prove anything to customers.

That is not arrogance - it is standard business.

>> 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.

If I wanted feature X in VMS then I would get the people actually
buying to stuff to tell their HP sales rep that they would buy
systems if X were available.

Money makes companies listen.

Long talk about IPv6 standard does not interest them unless it
involves money.

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

Money already spend does not affect profitability analysis.

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

Impressive.

But it it did not prove the business case.

Arne