[Info-vax] Layered products, the HP view !?!

[Simon Clubley]

On 2015-06-17, Robert A. Brooks <FIRST.LAST at vmssoftware.com> wrote:
> On 6/16/2015 5:00 PM, clairgrant71 at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I'll give this a shot. On HP V8.4 you will find layered product xyz. If you
>> do a LICENSE SHOW you will see that the producer is "HP". On our release
>> V8.4-1H1 you may also find that same layered product xyz but its producer is
>> "VSI" which we obviously support.
>>
>> HP will not support HP-branded products on 1H1. So, if VSI is not currently
>> shipping a VSI-branded version of a product and you continue to run your
>> HP-branded version, HP will not support it.
>>
>> Slightly clearer than mud, I hope. We've been answering these questions for
>> months now so we should be getting better by now.
>
> Opening up the rat's nest even more . . .
>
> There is also the distinction between PCSI and VMSinstallable products.
>
> An HP-provided layered product that uses PCSI ***WILL NOT INSTALL***
> on V8.4-1H1 as things are currently configured.  The HP product will
> require HP VMS <mumble>, and the VSI operating system is VSI VMS <mumble>.
>

I'm sure you are very aware of this :-), but that could be a _massive_
problem within end user organisations.

If people have already paid for some IA-64 layered products which work
just fine, the question they are going to ask (quite rightly) is why
should they be forced to pay for them again ?

> The producer is the issue for PCSI, and required a lot of tap-dancing and
> beneath the sheets machinations to get the HP VMS-to-VSI VMS upgrade to work 
> correctly.  Thank you, Richard Bishop!
>
> For VMSINSTAL, this is likely not an issue, as VMSINSTAL does not by default
> check to see who provided the operating system, although an author
> of KITINSTAL.COM could put anything they want in there as a preinstallation
> check.
>
> For any HP layered product installed on HP-provided V8.4 that is
> then upgraded to V8.4-1H1, it should continue to work but it is not
> supported by either HP or VSI.
>

That's not a viable production option. In a worse case scenario, you need
to be able to re-create the existing system disk from the current versions
of products in the customer's possession.

This needs fixing. You need to be able to give a potential customer a
firm and viable answer to this question about existing (working) HP
products on VSI VMS because it's going to be one of the first questions
they ask.

This is obviously not an issue for x86-64 where new products will have
to be bought anyway. but this could affect the number of people willing
to buy VSI IA-64 VMS from you in the meantime because it's going to
seriously increase their costs for migrating to another IA-64 box.

Over the last few months, I've grown to really like the idea of VMS on
x86-64, but 3 years is a _long_ way away in terms of cash flow income
and I don't want to see you fold because it was too expensive for
enough people to move away from HP VMS to VSI VMS.

(And don't forget that you might not get as much money up front from
each customer, but if you can persuade more customers to convert at
the cost of a lower up front income, then you may have a more
predictable continuing support revenue stream to help you survive in
the mean time.)

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world