[Info-vax] HP alerts full of broken links

[IanD]

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 3:54:46 AM UTC+10, David Froble wrote:
> IanD wrote:

<snip>

> 
> I don't understand the above rant.  We've known for some time that HP did not 
> value VMS, except for milking the dying cow as much as possible.  Now they have 
> basically gotten out of the VMS business, why would you still expect anything 
> from them?
> 

You totally missed the point of my post then or I didn't communicate it clearly enough

It was to show that when I worked for HP, finding someone to get anything done was a nightmare. Groups subdivided to the nth degree to the point where finding someone to take responsibility for a given product took endless searching. It was a faceless entity then and it still remains one today at least IMO

Just to find out what parts are required to upgrade an ES80 as an example took me through 11 different contacts - tell me this is not an organization in trouble?

<snip>

> This is the hope for the future.  I believe there is a determination to in time 
> fix all the problems.  It's going to take a while.  Perhaps not fast enough for 
> those who are impatient.  Reality usually trumps expectations.

What I posted was to show the difference between what HP has become and what VSI are now in terms of organizational structure. too many layers versus a flat new one

Now back to the issue...

HP ripped something up that was working and broke it in the process

People have contacted them and got stonewalled initially and/or gave up because they didn't know who to contact or were lucky enough to know someone on the inside that gave them a fast-track of whom to contact

I made the comparison that HP are the same today as when I worked for them years ago and that it was my hope that VSI could do better in terms of documentation as they are a flat structured organization at present

Normally in any organisation that follows a resemblance of adherence it ITIL, for change control, when you propose to touch something you gather and perform some impact assessment. Obviously HP didn't bother doing this with VMS documentation - probably too small for them to worry about maybe?

However, one normally puts in place a catching mechanism to report on and identify repeat failures of process - yet I see comments like 'unless someone tells HP what is wrong how are they supposed to know'!

Sorry, but I don't buy that line of reasoning, especially if you have made a change to something, you don't walk away and turn your back and hope everything is just ok. Yes, this change is a greater part of something happening but so what
 
You test, you put in place capturing mechanisms to detect when existing processes have broken (like page missing url captures for example) and you normally put up something to say this has changed and if it's broken please contact xyz specifically who was responsible for the change so as to get service restored - this is just quality 101

I don't see any of this in place with the changes HP have made to the documentation

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:01:35 AM UTC+10, David Froble wrote:

<snip>

> 
> Are HP still taking money from customers ?
> 
> Fixed it for ya ...
> 

lol

> 
> They will still take the money.  But, are they providing support?
> 

Software side, yes

Hardware side it's a bit of a grey area

If something breaks, yes, if you want to upgrade with parts, then unofficially no (at least on Alpha)...

> How's your issues with documentation coming along?

Broken jack-ass, broken (that is not meant to be a dig at yourself with the jack-ass comment either, I'm quoting Foamy Squirrel here) :-)
It's what immediately came to mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmD_8cBqhW0#t=2m2s

The main page works but any HTML link is still broken underneath

At least the pdf documents I have tried still work