Conference noted::polycenter

Three things - 


1) can I suggest that if this note is a regular update and 
our official channel for all information on future releases
that who-ever does the update could also put together a 
distribution list and let us all sign up if we're interested. 

Currently I expect other groups are doing the same  as ours
trying to support a bunch of products by having people 
who search about for this information and send it off 
to each other. 

2) Could we have specific versions on the document, it 
might be enough for marketting staff but techies need it 
too!  If I see that the next version will support 3.2 and 
4.0 I know that's probably a rather loose description. 

Taking the digital unix versions for example, I don't know if 
the others are the same..
Does it really support versions from the beginning of 1995 to 
versions which are unreleased as yet?!?! (meaning all the 
3.2* and 4.0* versions) or does it support just 3.2
(which is now unsupported) and v4.0 - in which case
what on earth are customers on 3.2c, 3.2d, 3.2e, 3.2f,
3.2g and 4.0a and 4.0b meant to do? 

3) As per 831.3 - I need to find out for a customer whether 
there is even planned versions of the following for 
digital unix 4.0b: console manager, netview and watchdog, 
and if there are when he can expect them. 

    
    	I'm I the only one who thinks the Alliance with CA is a big joke?
    Polycenter System Watchdog has now slipped into the July-Sep timeframe?
    IMO that is totally unacceptable. If they are not going to update our
    old products in a timely matter, then give them back.
    
    Ron

>        I'm I the only one who thinks the Alliance with CA is a big joke?
>    Polycenter System Watchdog has now slipped into the July-Sep timeframe?
>    IMO that is totally unacceptable. If they are not going to update our
>    old products in a timely matter, then give them back.
>    
The same applies to Polycenter Scheduler. V2.2 was ready to ship when CA got
the product. We're still waiting for the release. CA here in Holland did still
ship V2.1B-'old' last januari were as we already shipped V2.1B-9 in the time we
owned the product.

I share your feelings. I think they bought the market and kill the products so
customers migrate to the CA Universe.

Eric

        Well, I will not migrate to TNG whatever. Nor will most of my
        customers. So CA will probably lose the market.
        
        _veli

>       -< does not matter, CA does not get the market, we lost products >-

We're also going to lose the service revenue related to those products 
and our loyal customer's credibility. And my job?

- Kazunori

        My job too.

    
    One of the reasons I left the CSC here in Sydney was because of the
    POLYCENTER sale to CA, and especially now they offer Level 1 support
    for the POLYCENTER products they own, I reckoned I would not be
    employed for much longer if I had stayed in my old job.
    
    Tony Parsons,
    Sydney OMS

    Re -1.
    
    I must disagree. CA *did not* purchase the senior support resources for
    these products. They are still within the CSC organization and still
    on the job. The real support expertise remains with Digital.
    
    Regards,
       Dan

    
    Dan,
    
    I don't disagree with you at all.  The POLYCENTER expertise is still
    mainly in Digital.  However CA do offer Level 1 support and they are
    starting to take support $ off Digital.  I know CA in Australia have
    sent at least 2 of their people to the States for POLYCENTER support
    training so they can provide Level 1 support.
    
    Tony

Having taught CA folks for Level 1 support, as has Dan, CA will be VERY hard 
pressed to provide even superficial support on the OpenVMS POLYCENTER 
products.  I think they may be able to do a little better on UNIX.  In the 
US I don't believe CA will have any presence in support of POLYCENTER 
products.

Jilly

    Re -2.
    
    I didn't mean to imply that you didn't agree but Jilly said it all in
    -1. Very few of the CA folks that I trained had any real VMS
    experience and it will be virtually impossible for them to supply the
    level of service that Digital can. 
    
    In my opinion, the biggest problem we have is with temporary license
    paks. Digital does not have the legal right to generate PAKS for
    any of the products. Jim Burton has put a process in place for 
    customers to obtain them but it can't be as fast as when we could
    generate our own.
    
    Regards,
       Dan

>>    In my opinion, the biggest problem we have is with temporary license
>>    paks. Digital does not have the legal right to generate PAKS for
>>    any of the products. Jim Burton has put a process in place for 
>>    customers to obtain them but it can't be as fast as when we could
>>    generate our own.

The problem now is we can't generate any more temporary PAKs and CA will
not generate any either.  If you are using POLYCENTER on temporary PAKs,
you have no options other than to move to Unicenter or go to third-party
products.  I will write more on that later.

Jim

Re: .3

> I share your feelings. I think they bought the market and kill the products so
> customers migrate to the CA Universe.

Sadly, you are right. See 842 / 845.

Hans.  :-(

PS: I'd like to know who decided to play games with our customers. If I read the
recent announcements correctly, 

- you can order the new POLYCENTER product version from now through end of June
- but they will start to ship them between end of June and mid of July !

Still shaking my head...

>>PS: I'd like to know who decided to play games with our customers. If I read the
>>recent announcements correctly, 
>>
>>- you can order the new POLYCENTER product version from now through end of June
>>- but they will start to ship them between end of June and mid of July !

I'm the one who put these part numbers up on the pricefile.  Only the OpenVMS
parts will come down on July 1, the UNIX ones will stay up until we get the
word from CA.  As far as "who decided to play games with our customers", CA
decided to play games with their own customers.  In this case, they also
happen to be our customers.

Jim

Jim,

no offence meant against you. I can imagine that you are in a pretty difficult
situation, as CA owns the products and has the final word.

I still find it very - strange is probably the best word in my limited
vocabulary - that CA supplied information only two weeks ago which mentioned
'next planned release: Nov/Dec 97, now soliciting requirements', just to kill
the products now.

Hans.

Hans,

You really need to understand how CA works internally to understand how that
can happen.  Unlike Digital, CA severely restricts access to information both
within the company and outside the company. Only the top 6 people in the
company are privy to the 'strategy'.  Workers carry out 'tasks' on behalf of
the strategy, but are never told what the strategy actually is.  The top six
know the strategy but not the details and the workers know the details but
not the strategy. 

Everything workers do has to be approved by the top six before the information
goes outside CA.  If a worker submits a question to the top six and doesn't
receive an answer within a month, then the answer is assumed to be "no".  It's
a very strange environment.  In fact, CA has an internal term for it --
"CA-speak". This means take what information we give you and do your job. 
Don't get hung up in the details.  We'll let you know when you do something
wrong. 

With that in mind, the workers at CA were going along with plans to do future
releases and the top six told them the strategy changed.  The POLYCENTER
marketing manager (ex-DECcie) was so upset at the decision that she resigned
the day of the announcement.  Digital had a good information path to the 
workers (info I was sending out) , but not to the top six.  In fact, no one
anywhere in or out of CA has a good info path to the top six and CA's future 
strategy.

Jim 

How about we get back the sources and re-release the products.

Customers I know don't want the extra bagage of TNG, they just want 
PCM for VMS.

Greg

>>How about we get back the sources and re-release the products.

How can we?  We sold the products.  That's like Ford coming to you saying 
you have to give them back the car they just sold to you because they need it
for another buyer.  

I have asked CA to sell them back to us a number of times and every time the
answer is "No, not even for a billion dollars.  Stop asking us".

Jim

    This tends to reenforce the speculation that CA bought these products
    to kill them.
    
    Jc
    

CA bought the market or customers. It might be difficult for them to 
aquire so many first-class-in-industory customers in such a short period.

They'll never bring us back those products until they suck up our poor 
loyal customers or it would be too heavy burden for them to absorb our
customers. Anyway there's not enough room for us to change the course.

Someone made a bad agreement with CA, the worst in series of alliances.

- Kazunori

P.S. I'll go back to MCS, cause the future of my consulting business in
NSIS, which brings us $$$$ but uses PSDC and PSPA, would be eclpsed by this 
alliance.