[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Richard Maher]

Hi Arne,

"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.

No, but it is your hypocrisy, spin, prejudice, and bigotry that deceitfully
excludes IPsec from the category of "interoperability products". What could
facilitate interoperability more than an Industry-Standard, Secure, yet
transparent Network Infrastructure?

But slight-of-hand has once again transmorphed "interoperability products"
into "Arne's favourite product".
>
> >>>> 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.

Really? And why will you be doing that then? (Especially in the total
absence of any evidence to substantiate such claims. Not only that systems
were bought or kept but also that any customers asked for that crap in the
first place.)

So let's pause for a moment. When faced with the entire IT industry (outside
of the HP/VMS black-lagoon) whole-heartidly embracing IPsec, you sit there
like Jimmy Durante asking "What Elephant?" and demanding proof, yet here you
are willingly assuming that your incompetent-twat mates in HP/VMS are
infalable.

You've over-played your hand; the terror in your eyes and the tremble in
your voice is there for all to see/hear. You're left with a pair of deuces,
and a "How to deflect the truth in debating 101" manual.
>
> > 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.

Can't say I've seen much of BridgeWorks on Itanium but I wouldn't put it
past you to justify it. (But I did find that gSOAP post that is white-anting
Axis2 on VMS and will respond there)
>
> >>>>  >                       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.

So you won't want to save the the VMS users from the expense and
undesirability of IPsec tomorrow? Only today? Or is your whole goal in life
just to delay it? If it does materialize I'd imagine you'd just assume the
customers were there?
>
> I know that you implicit assumption that cost ends at delivery
> of EAK is wrong.

I made no such assumption. Just search for the word "pittance" and the
comparisons with the IPsec unbundling cost. Contrast this with your explicit
and IMHO totally misleading protestations that gSOAP has cost the
license-payers nothing. (Let alone what was squandered on 4 web-browsers for
a server-centric operating system :-( )
>
> > 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.

Look do share your thoughts with us! Maybe you can help out with the GFC and
Swine Flu? How do you feel about East Jerusalem? Does Barack know you're
available?
>
> I would be surprised if it were. IPv6 is not that widely used.

Maybe you can get together and form a group with other visionaries? "The
IPv6 Deniers" - IP addresses aren't running out, the glaciers aren't
melting, and maybe they really were all delousing showers eh?
>
> >>>> 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.

On the balance of probabilities Arne, what's the most likely explanation?
Hmm?

x) "HP/VMS stands alone as a beacon of truth and frugality surrounded by an
industry of wreckless gamblers?"

y) "HP/VMS once again misses the techology boat unable to distiguish its
arse from its elbow"

>
> > 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.

Oh well done. Memory had to slum-it for a while did it?
>
> I am sure that they must have done some type of business analysis when
> deciding to do that.

Nah, compared to your mates at HP/VMS, I'm sure theyre a bunch of
fool-hardy, devil-may-care, hooligans. Just in it for the laughs.
>
> 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.

On the balance of probabilities which would you say is the more likey?

(Oh and an "N year old third party stack" how distasteful! I think I almost
heard you spit.)

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

Well if it didn't sell I'd imagine redundancy would become a real motivator.
>
> >> 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.

I will assume it's true.
>
> >> 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.

Can you name one other product in which you have shown such [dis]interest
that I can look up in this newsgroup?

What you have done is FUDded and distracted for reasons only know to
yourself.
>
>  >                                                                 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.

Yet you persist in your denial of what is already implemented, the millions
that have been spent, and the years invested. I have grown tired of you and
your diversionary obstacles to a worthy product, obstacles that you have
never placed before another.
>
> I don't care much whether IPsec for VMS arrives tomorrow or
> in 15 months or never.

Bollocks! You doth protest too much. I'm passionate about IPsec and yet I'm
sick of hearing about it. You're either running an agenda or you're one of
the sadest muppets on the planet! Go out and buy a dog or something - I'll
skip the rest.
>
> 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

Regards Richard Maher

PS. Actually Arne, I don't recall you ever discussing the benefits of IPsec
as you see them (or not) and why they don't apply to the VMS community.
Please do tell us what's good about IPsec and why it's not important.

No? Nah, I didn't think so.