[Info-vax] HP's Partner Virtualization Program

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Richard Maher wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

In twenty years as a system manager, VMS and several flavors of Unix, I 
NEVER used, or even encountered, IPSEC!  We've all gotten along without 
it somehow.  I never missed it!  Why has it suddenly become a sine qua non?