[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Richard Maher]

"Arne Vajhøj" <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote in message
news:4a7cb8a7$0$305$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk...
> 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