Item for Bootcamp-goers?

[Jan van den Ende]

Hello all you hard workers.
Enjoying? Probably yes!

Maybe it would be an idea to check entry #24 of

http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=555089
Most of this is from sources I DO trust to give reasonably correct info, but only the reported ENSA@WORK2004 slide is reproducible fact.
Maybe you up there are in prime position to have details of this refuted or confirmed?
I really WOULD like to have (part of) this out in the open, or out of the rumors.

At least it SHOULD be able to give you some food for discussions, and THAT it would like reported back!

Enjoy! (and give Sue my greetings).


Jan

[John Eerenberg]

Jan,

I've certainly cut HP no slack when it comes to marketing. Yet, fhe fact that there is a 20 year DoD contract is not a secret. Heck, that fact is known to most even where I work. But telling someone that there is a 20 year DoD contract can't be taken as a trump card over all other OSes and vendors. Anyone can support almost anything for 20 years -- if cost is no objection. ;-)

I used to be tighly involved in some large DoD contracts in the 80's and if I can apply that experience to how I interpret the referenced HP commitment it is that it is for support. Yes, new speeds and feeds are part of the contract, but no one can commit and say a 3x CPU performance increase will be available in y years. Most likely the contract says "a GS1280 can be bought now and its follow-on or *equivalent* can be bought in (x) years; it's support is for (20-x) years. blah, blah, blah." Language like that.

Support does not mean continuous and latest innovation and use of technology. On the otherhand, given the value of VMS I think it implies that there will be continous and constant development and innovation in the market place at large and the DoD will take advantage of that as time goes on. VMS will get better as a result.

No doubt in my mind HP can and is going to support VMS for 20 years. It may become expensive for the DoD but HP can maintain VMS and its hardware for 20 years. The 20 year contract doesn't have to include things like VMS on Itanium; that was not a product at the time the contract was awarded. The 20 year contract has to provide functionality and support of that (then current) functionality. I mean, what if Itanium didn't make it (I don't believe that will happen, not for one second, but just for the sake of argument . . .)? That is outside of HP's hands since that is an Intel product (I'm not addressing HP's tight involvement with Intel since HP doesn't own Intel outright). Theoretically, that means HP could support VMS as is today on Alpha for 20 years. Cost to the DoD aside, HP could do that.

I believe the referenced entry mistates the 5 year rule on product announcements. I may have misread the author's point, but it is no brainer that one cannot make any commitment to new speeds and feeds 20 years out -- however, a commitment to support could be made.

Overall, what does that mean to the VMS community at large? Very good things. It also means, that as a customer, I have options and I don't have to make changes in a reactionary fashion.

The 20 year contract means credibility. It is not an end all, be all fact when comparing other systems. It does mean VMS is valued and will be around a long time.

Bootcamp is a wonderful thing! If I get the opportunity, I'll ask around about this topic.

john

[Jan van den Ende]

John,

on the whole I just have to agree with you.



The 20 year contract means credibility. It is not an end all, be all fact when comparing other systems. It does mean VMS is valued and will be around a long time.



Your last paragraph is what is al about!

The contract is SAID to include a condition that VMS will have to be kept apace with the prevailing technologies, but most important in my vision is the guaranteed contunuity: for any then-owner of VMS it is pure (literal!) company suicide to discontinue VMS. As I read it, even SHOULD Itanium fail (and it can give some doubts to follow eg. the comp.os.vms discussions on that topic), but even THEN, the owner of VMS has to supply an alternative, and that alternative will have to be reflective of then-current possibilities.

The main point IS the guaranteed availability & support, and if THAT argument would somehow be used in marketing, THAT is something a little different from the nowadays quite common general concept of (Gartner-speak:) "It will be gone within 5 years"

Pesonally, I am betting my future on VMS until I retire.

And "bootcamp is wonderfull?" Oh yes, I had the pleasure of experiencing that last november.

Jan

[Martin P.J. Zinser]

Hello Jan,

I've just returned from the bootcamp (my luggage is still somewhere at large).

The DII-COE agreement as such is well known and has been publicized on the OpenVMS Webserver. As to the specifics of the penalties in the contract I reckon that these are company confidential totally independet from any legal rules about making competitive statements. I do know that any employee disclosing such details of a major contract in the company I work for would be in very severe trouble. Plus you actually only would know them if you really need to.

So first of all it is improbable that somebody from engeneering really would know (besides of internal rumors) and if they would make any statements that could be traced at all, they would be in for a rough ride. And since we all want that Sue and the rest of the crowd will be with us for more than these puny 20 years I rather did not ask.

Sorry,

Martin

[Willem Grooters]

The contents of the contract are of no issue. It's the contract itself that counts.
Problem is it's NOT as widely known as you will expect. CIO's will know, but CEO's don't look at HP's website for info, they rely on market "analysts" (quotes are deliberately placed here - you'll know why). As long as they simply ignore this fact, it won't be widely known where it really matters.

Sad, but true.

Willem

[Jan van den Ende]

Willem,

" CIO's will know, "

if only THAT were true!!

This is what I was trying to achieve: a little more visibility of this fenomal marketing argument.
And, yes, the details don't really matter, to me they are only rumors anyway, but they DO give an indication of the magnitude.
And compare this to the implications of NOW moving to Tru64!! (and you and I both are seeing that, from close up, aren't we: Away FROM vms, TO tru64, and NO WAY to convince them of the foolishness). If, not some "short-sighted" techies, but some high-end commercial or consulting people were telling this story...

Personally I don't care whether I am praised or cursed for the effort, but I keep trying everything I can to try and convince as many people as possible, and if I can convince some, maybe one of them DOES have the influence I am obviously lacking...


Jan

[Ian Miller.]

for your specific problem have you talked to your local hp vms ambassador who may be able to supply appropriate consulting resources. If they want a market analyst try Terry Shannon.

[Jan van den Ende]

Ian,

VMS ambassador? Oh yes, we even had Sue herself involved!
But, educating the unknowing is one thing, educating the unwilling is something else!

:-[ :-[ (is there a smiley for tears rolling over your face, that's what I really need now)

Jan

[Willem Grooters]

Ian,

HP itself is part of the problem:


for your specific problem have you talked to your local hp vms ambassador who may be able to supply appropriate consulting resources.


He could (and would) as long as HP would allow him, but when HP-UX is in the picture as well, he has to back-out.

Willem

[Jan van den Ende]

Yeah,
and then, when HP has convinced them to go *NIX, the battle will be between SUN and IBM about just WHICH *NIX....

Jan