[Info-vax] Beyond Open Source

[David Froble]

johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 May 2015 02:18:13 UTC+1, clairg... at gmail.com  wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 2:09:06 PM UTC-4, seasoned_geek wrote:
>>> On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 9:59:12 AM UTC-5, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>>
>>>>  
>>>> After Balmer left Microsoft, new CEO Satya Nadella admitted that Microsoft had installed more Linux-based platforms into the Microsoft cloud than Windows-based platforms (the rumor mill claims windows platforms were responsible for most of the problems). On top of this, we were told that Microsoft also contributing code to Linux and might be responsible for 10% of the current Linux code base.
>>>>  
>>> Back when I was writing this book:
>>>
>>> http://theminimumyouneedtoknow.com/mono_book.html
>>>
>>> There was actual documentation, not rumor, but actual official word that Bill Gates and/or Microsoft was directly contributing to the development of Mono going on at Novell. Appears to be many different groups now that it has expanded to Andriod.
>>>
>>> http://webinos.org/crossplatformtools/xamarin-monotouch-and-mono-for-android/
>>>
>>> (Did not know that Novell had went completely under and is now owned by Attachmate. It took a few decades, but that case of 'Corporate HIV' they got from getting in bed with Microsoft really did kill them.)
>>>
>>>> I have always wondered why HP treated OpenVMS like the proverbial "red-headed step child" while continuing to promote HP-UX but lets be realistic: from a manager's 100-foot perspective, HP-UX and Linux are the same thing. Heck, I saw an HP article 2-weeks ago claiming they will develop something called Linux++ which will run "the machine".
>>>>
>>> The same reason HP elected to kill of the much loved Alpha CPU which had at least 5 years if not 10 years of enhancements left in it. HP didn't invent it. They didn't want to admit VMS was kicking UX's ass up and down every street they met on. They didn't want to admit the Alpha technology Intel was caught stealing red handed while working on the HP-Intel joint venture to create a 64-bit chip 10 YEARS LATE was way better than the Itanic they finally launched.
>>>
>>> Don't forget, when Itanic first came out UX was migrated and UX customers responded "even we are dumb enough to run that." So, they ported VMS and killed Alpha, thus forcing a bastardized chip out into a world which did not need, want, or have any use for that chip.
>> COMPAQ stopped development of Alpha. Three senior engineers, long-time DEC/COMPAQ people, had been working with Intel and concluded that the best path forward was to move to Itanium. There was an extremely long and loud debate as to whether it was worth the effort to port VMS, whereas there was no debate about Tru64. Further development of VMS could have easily ended that day early in 2001. But, we were told to start planning the work. A few months later it was announced that HP was acquiring COMPAQ which was finalized in the spring of 2002. By that time we were nearly a year into the VMS port to Itanium.
> 
> According to the variant I heard, the engineers in question were
> from the Systems side of things. They knew where their bread was
> buttered, and perhaps more importantly how much money chip development
> could/would burn.
> 
> The folks in the Digital Semiconductor side of things were still
> believing that the messages in this 1999 "Alpha vs IA64" whitepaper
> were technically valid:
> http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~mlewis/CSCI3294-F01/Papers/alpha_ia64.pdf
> 
> But, courtesy of Intel's big pockets and promise of "industry
> standard 64bit" IA64, there wasn't going to be serious money for
> future Alpha developments. Return on investment wasn't good enough.
> Much as there is no longer serious money for IA64 developments
> for the same reason. Intel: the x86 company. 
> 
> It's probably all a bit dependent on who you ask. Water under the
> bridge, history is written by the winner, etc.

Well, the bottom line is, and was, could Alpha compete?  In performance, 
yes, it definitely could.  Alpha and Power were ahead of everything 
else.  But, Alpha would need someone who wanted to be in the chip design 
business, and it would have needed to gain market share, or, have 
customers willing to pay a premium price.

No way was Compaq interested in the semiconductor business.  Just wasn't 
going to happen.  Someone gave them an alternative, and they snapped it 
up like a trout going for a juicy looking lure.  Hook, line, and sinker.

I remember reading that about this same time, with the success of Alpha 
and Power, some HP tech people told their management, "we were wrong, 
OOO can work and is working well".  The HP management made the decision 
to sail on the not so good ship itanic, regardless of their tech people 
suggestions.  Managers, how much better off might we be without them?

Anyway, the real idiots was Intel.  They could have had the Alpha. 
Perhaps it was the Samsung license that turned them off.  Remember, they 
had these visions of the itanic being the only enterprise CPU, and 
themselves the only company producing it.  Their motive, GREED!

They might have succeeded if not for the AMD Athlon 64.  That was 
probably the worst setback Intel has ever had.  All their monopoly 
dreams, shattered.