[Info-vax] Reimplementing VMS, was: Re: HP adds OpenVMS Mature Product Support beyond the end of Standard Support

[JF Mezei]

On 14-02-03 20:39, David Froble wrote:

> Since you claim that HP is paying Intel to produce IA-64, then Intel 
> will lose that money because HP is giving up on it's products.  To then 
> pay HP on top of that loss ???????????

This is why timing is important.

Consider the steps:

Intel goes to HP., wants to throw in the towel and discusses possible
IA64 exit strategies.

To prepare for such discussion, HP has to look at feasability and costs
of porting BCS to 8086.

Cue the then CTO Shane Robison who felt everything was heading commodity
Linux/Windows for servers. How much longer do HP-UX/VMS/NSK have ?, how
much does it cost to port ?, how much does it cost to extend lifetime of
Itanic to more or less match expected lifetime of HP-UX ?.

Evidently, HP decided to pay Intel to extend the life of IA64 about
about 10 years. Part of this involves lies and deceit to continue to
pretend that IA64 is successfull and has bright lifetime ahead of it.

Because of those lies and deceit, HP knows it has many ghosts who could
come back to haunt it. The Oracle lawsuit being a good example. So it
really doesn't want any leaks of what really happened and wouldn't want
names of engineers involved in the port evaluation pilot projects to
become public. Imagine if Oracle had brought some of them as witnesses !

Johnnny Billquist's message is as follows: he has a friend was involved
in this mess and knows how drastic the punishement would be on him
should this become public, so he wants this discussion to end ASAP.

If the full story of this ever came out, it would be a disaster of
Itanic proportions when one considers how much money will have been sunk
in IA64, how much HP lied about it, and why Intel was able to claim it
was profitable (since HP was paying huges amounts of money for IA64).