[Info-vax] HP / VSI OpenVMS breakfast event - held on 5 May 2015 - loose recap

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <06893758-dcfb-4c60-a1aa-436bb5badca6 at googlegroups.com>,
	IanD <iloveopenvms at gmail.com> writes:
> On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 3:09:11 PM UTC+10, David Froble wrote:
>> IanD wrote:
>> 
>> > The most interesting thing I found was just how much HP have been
>> > helping VSI with this whole venture (which is totally different to
>> > what I thought). The amount of work gathering source code (all the
>> > way back to and including the Vax I believe) was sourced from all
>> > over the place and off servers that had been shut down etc so as to
>> > hand over to VSI the most complete works for OpenVMS possible. The
>> > amount of effort HP must have gone through was incredible, it has
>> > totally changed by biased opinion towards HP having abandoned OpenVMS
>> > to one where it appears that HP want VSI to be as successful as
>> > possible with their OpenVMS venture. The view I had was one of HP
>> > ditching OpenVMS and getting a few bucks as OpenVMS is licensed out
>> > to now one of seeing HP as wanting VSI to be successful and they
>> > seriously have done so much work in handing over OpenVMS in the best
>> > form possible. John Egolf and the team of people at HP frankly left
>> > me rather gob-smacked as to the effort they put in to the
>> > transformation to VSI. It really is more of a partnership than a
>> > handover as I first thought
>> 
>> There are still VMS people at HP, and they were never the problem.  The 
>> problems were those who would not allow the VMS people to do things they 
>> might have wanted to do.  Like Stullard (mis-spelled?) with his "we 
>> expect people to eventually port to HP-UX" and other such.  I'd also 
>> guess it wasn't the VMS people still at HP that axed the Nashua group.
> 
> I know first hand the arrogance of some arms in HP management. I would describe it as a faceless organisation in regards to internal management and it's treatment towards certain sectors within it
> 
> But then again, I'm biased. I worked for EDS which was then taken over by HP for many years before HP decided anything VMS related was to be off-shored

I can't tell from your tone if you are for or against EDS prior to the HP
takeover.  I can say that I looked at EDS back in the earlier Ross Perot
days and nothing could have made me work for them after the various horror
stories I got from (then) current and former employees.  I did have contact
with HP/EDS employees thru their DISA contracts and they seemed rather
satisfied working for them.

> 
> Obviously those remaining souls within HP went the extra length to make sure VSI  got the best start they could get - full credit to the HP VMS folk, it certainly turned my view of parts of HP around...

I would have hoped that all of HP's responsibilities in this transition
were firmly and clearly stated in the agreement.  Especially given HP's
past reputation regarding VMS.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>