[Info-vax] Blackadder goes forth (Was: Re: IPSec - Dear God in heaven NO!)

[Richard Maher]

Hi Richard,

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jbidnZRPXcXrh1PUnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d at giganews.com...
> Richard Maher wrote:
> > Hi JF,
> >
> > "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> wrote in message
> > news:0015f265$0$23347$c3e8da3 at news.astraweb.com...
> >> Richard Maher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can anyone please tell me what has happened to IPSec?
> >> Seems pretty obvious based on the new roadmap, isn't it ?
> >
> > Then it would also be equally obvious that there is more than enough
money
> > in the VMS coffers to pay for the porting of RTR to Linux or a WSIT 3.0
but
> > not enough to release something that has been in EAK for years and the
rest
> > of the industry has had for decades?
> >
> > Or is it the (something that sounds like) dynamic key discovery stuff?
> >
> >> The era where we had to read between the lines to figure out what HP
was
> >> really up to is nearing the end now. Since january the hints are
> >> becoming more and more obvious.
> >
> > But I personally know of several completely useless twats that continue
to
> > suckle their exorbitant salaries at the VMS license-payer teat, so it is
> > inconveivable that Ann would have similtaneously retrenched tens of
talented
> > and productive engineers?
> >
> > Quite revealing to see who's managed to dawdle in the trenches after
she's
> > blown the whistle!
> >
> >>
> >>> Is <name> still at HP?
> >> It is not polite to ask this question. HP has strict policies imposed
on
> >> employees with regards to what they can or cannot say.
> >
> > I don't care who tells me. His e-mail hasn't bounced yet if that's any
> > indication.
> >
> > Anyway, what "policies"? Can't stop someone looking for work and asking
> > questions.
> >
> > Maybe we can get photos of missing VMS engineers stuck on Milk Cartons?
> > How can they sack the wrong people again and again :-( Yes there are
cost
> > savings to be made and plenty of dead-wood but they're cutting in the
wrong
> > places!
> >
> > Regards Richard Maher
> >
> >
>
> Well you, or anyone else, may hire these ex HP people to do anything
> they are willing to do and you are able to pay for.  If there were money
> to be made, SOMEBODY would be doing it.

So how much money is being made from the RTR port to Linux, and WSIT version
3.0? C'mon, whose mates are on these projects; you can tell us. RTR on Linux
would certainly make it easier for OMX to abandon VMS; that's gotta be a
good thing right?

As far as "SOMEBODY doin it" goes, if the "it" you're refering to is IPsec
then yes "SOMEBODY" *has* been doin it; it's called the rest of the bloody
industry! Windows and IBM have supported IPsec for about 10 years and I'm
sure any of Linux/BSD fans here can tell us about *nix IPsec availability.
Oh, and let's not forget Process Software and Multinet on VMS a year or so
ago. (All of these people fools who just like wasting money? Pale into
insignificance when compared to the forsight of your VMS Management
cognoscente?)

But more complete IPv6 seems (at least for the time being) to be on the
drawing board and trickling through layered products; where's the money in
that? Telnet a lot with IPv6 do we? Or is it that when HP/VMS management
once more vacillated over the Rubicon and decided that VMS must have a
HP-supported, fully functioning, IP-stack and that they comitted to
upgrading and supporting the product? Or maybe it should be renamed back to
UCX again? (Must be money in re-naming; they do it so often.)

I know many of you here are already running Multinet happily on VMS, but if
the scum that is continuing to make these decisions at HP/VMS gets their way
and cans IPsec then you all better get on the phone to Process Software on
Monday.

Unless you're in the same bed, religion, politics, sexual-orientation, or
family-tree as those on RTR and WSIT, you're getting nothing!

Regards Richard Maher