Conference 7.286::digital

    
    
    >> Digital Equipment Corp will announce that it is selling its Rdb
    >> database business this month, PC Week believes.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    And there is your answer.
    
    Ian.

>to DEC. As to a buyer, the first name that as usual springs to mind is 
>Computer Associates International Inc; a development tools vendor that does 
>not have its own database is a possibility. 

	Computer Associates is now buying ASK Group (i.e. INGRES), so it will 
	never happen.

							Miyanabe/DEC-Japan

    CA has 3-4 database products in its portfolio....we're taling with them
    about porting to Digital's UNIX platform.....the Ingres product is just
    one more product in their series of database products.
    
    Mark
    

	This rumor isn't new. The only news about the article is that
	somebody at PC Week has decided to announce that they believe it.
	Other rumos have had us being bought by Oracle, Microsoft, Sybase,
	AT&T, and just about everybody else with the cash to do it.

	The most interesting thing about this particular rumor to me (and
	this applies to the Computerworld article of last week or so as
	well) is that we (Rdb & Digital) are getting mention in
	traditionally PC-oriented magazines like PC Week and Computerworld.
	Five years ago we would have been ignored. But, I guess this is the
	difference between being "famous" and "notorious."

	Roy

    Here's the article from the JUNE 20 issue of PC WEEK.  Page 3.
    
    			DEC to sell Rdb business unit
    
    As part of its ongoing consolidation, Digital Equipment Corp. will
    announce this month the sale of its Rdb database business, according
    to company insiders.  DEC may know who the buyer is by the time of the
    announcement, but it is unlikely a deal will be completed by then, a
    DEC official said.
    
    Separately, a DEC spokesperson confirmed that the company is
    negotiating with MCI Metro, a division of MCI, to sell its lightwave
    fiber network and accompanying equipment.  Last week, DEC's board of
    directors approved a reorganization plan to tranform DEC into a holding
    company and five business units with their own presidents.

    re .6:
    
    �Last week, DEC's board of
    �directors approved a reorganization plan to tranform DEC into a holding
    �company and five business units with their own presidents.
    
    Hmmm... none of the other rumors mentions this.
    
    In fact, this kind of reorganization was pushed by DEC Germany, but it
    was apparently stopped by the corporation (after some initial
    implementation). Why would they change their mind now?

>                         DEC may know who the buyer is by the time of the
>   announcement, but it is unlikely a deal will be completed by then, a
>   DEC official said.

I find this scenario hard to believe.  First, "DEC may know..."  There's
the possibility that they'll announce the sale of Rdb without having a buyer?
Second, they'll announce the sale before it's finalized?  Why?

    RE: .5
    
    Could it be because now we have a great PC offering? and no longer
    recreate the PC standard?
    
    

    re: .8
    
    Why would they do this?  Perhaps to offset whatever bad news that one
    might anticipate with respect to the announcement of Q4/FY results.

From PC Week article:

>     Last week, DEC's board of
>     directors approved a reorganization plan to tranform DEC into a holding
>     company and five business units with their own presidents.

Finally, something all those VPs can aspire to - President!

Will we soon be seeing weekly "So and so promoted to President of XYZ
business unit" messages?

- Jim

From:	WILBRY::OCONNELL     "DEC Rdb - World's Fastest Database!" 22-JUN-1994 16:58:53.34
To:	IM_PARTNERS
CC:	OCONNELL
Subj:	Letter to Computerworld Editor has been sent -- enclosed. Mike

    		*** RESPONSE TO COMPUTERWORLD ARTICLE ***
    
    	*** THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AND CAN BE SHARED WITH CUSTOMERS ***
    
    Senior management has approved the release of this letter to the editor
    as a response to the May 30th Computerworld article "Rdb Falling Beside
    the Digital Wayside".  Please forward it widely and use it in
    appropriate customer situations.
    
    It was sent to Computerworld today (June 22).  You should be aware that
    Computerworld has the *option* of printing it in some future issue, and
    also has the option of modifying the content to fit their venue.
    
    If you have any questions, please call me at DTN 381-1627, (603)
    881-1627, or E-Mail at WILBRY::OCONNELL.
    
    R,
    
    Mike
    
    *************************************************************************
    
Dear Editor:

We take strong objection to your misleading and poorly researched May 30 article
("RDB Falling Beside the Digital Wayside"), and are disappointed that we were
not provided with a fair opportunity to tell our side of the story. 

Digital is committed to DEC Rdb and to the continued support of its hundreds of
thousands of users.  The product remains extremely competitive in the database
marketplace and will continue to be enhanced to support our customers' critical
needs. DEC Rdb currently runs on OpenVMS and will be released on OSF/1 and
Windows NT later this year. 

DEC Rdb is clearly the top relational database performer in the market today. 
DEC Rdb has submitted numerous TPC-A benchmarks, and currently leads all other
vendors in performance by nearly a factor of 2 in relational technology, and
surpasses IBM's high-end TPF figure as well.  It also leads all four TPC-A
price/performance categories, being the least expensive solution in each
performance range.  This information is available from the independent
Transaction Processing Council upon request. 

In terms of third-party support for Rdb, there are over 250 applications on Rdb
today. Of those, the vast majority have already or are in the process of porting
their applications to our Alpha AXP platform, with many moving to the OpenVMS or
OSF/1 operating systems or both. 

Digital has always had a strong commitment to engineering excellence and to
providing its customers with the best solutions available.  DEC Rdb's technical
and functional leadership is proof of this commitment.  DEC Rdb is a profitable
product and has the advantage of having the lowest cost of ownership of any of
the major RDBMSs today. 

Sincerely,
Mike O'Connell 
DEC Rdb Marketing Manager

IMHO .12 is the usual vapourware again.

It does not comment on the reported intentions to sell Rdb. The fact that it's a
profitable product is more of a requirement to sell it (for a reasonable price)
than an indicator that we won't.

Hans. :-(

    Re: .13
    
    Exactly!
    

There is a rumor that Rdb is sold to Oracle?

Is this true? I don't believe in this. But perhaps???

Ferhat

    Not to my knowledge.
    
    Michael Moy
    DEC SQL Engineering

    According to this week's PC week, rumor has it that Digital's new
    arranagements to work as one with Oracle on opportunities is a sign
    that DEC is stepping back from Rdb and will be selling it.  CAI is
    listed by PC Week as the most likely buyer.  Quoted comments from an
    Oracle spokesman lend fuel to the fire, but there is no confirming
    comment available from Digital or CAI.
    
    Also included were some quotes from worried Digital customers.
    
    Another instance of PC Week making rumor look like fact.

re Note 3185.15 by ISTWI1::48676::DARUGER:

> There is a rumor that Rdb is sold to Oracle?
> 
> Is this true? I don't believe in this. But perhaps???
  
        The only news I've seen so far is very vague:

Subject:        DEC Cuts Downsizing Agreement with Oracle -Sentinel INDIVIDUAL
BRIEF Story
Source:         Individual, Inc.
Sentinel Delivered by Groupware Advanced Development:   
DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY BY INFORMATION PROVIDER AGREEMENT:    
Brief:  

  At a time when Digital Equipment Corp.'s commitment to its Rdb database
appears to be waning, the company last week pledged to work more closely
with Oracle Corp. to entice mainframe sites to downsize to DEC OSF/1
running on Alpha AXP systems. 


SentinelID:     774000644
Storyid:        c0710262.0zf
Storydate:      07-11-94
Headline:       DEC Cuts Downsizing Agreement with Oracle
StorySource:    PC Week
CatalogItems:   

    A DEC account rep from Canada that I talked to the other day told me about
    a very recent situation where Oracle walked into a customer with lots
    of Digital gear and told them that Rdb was dead ... 
    
    >Per

    
     Rumors about our demise in products and technology are our own fault.
    We are not market wise or leading/swaying market opinion in any case.
    
    So naturally we are on the defence. Too darn bad.
    
    -Mike Z.

    
    
    Article in the Washington Post last week regarding the sale of the disk
    bus had a line about Digital that read, "Digital who has alienated
    customers recently with it's high prices and waning technology."  I
    just shook my head.
    
    
    Mike

>    A DEC account rep from Canada that I talked to the other day told me about
>    a very recent situation where Oracle walked into a customer with lots
>    of Digital gear and told them that Rdb was dead ... 

	They've been doing that for years. Typical Sybase tactic, too. The
	problem is, our marketing and advertising presence is so anemic that
	it's an easy play.

	As for the rampant rumors, Rdb has been rumored to be sold (to
	Oracle, Microsoft, Lotus, Computer Associates, and probably just
	about anybody else with two dimes to rub together for all I know)
	many times over the past year. Rdb has also been rumored to have
	been cut, killed, put into maintenance mode, have only 5 engineers
	-- you name it, it's been said. And not just by our competitors, but
	by analysts like the Gartner Group and IDC as well.

	Digital management certainly didn't help the situation with the
	"we're going to make decisions, but we might not tell you what they
	are when we've made them" pronouncement back in May. The fact is
	that nothing is official until it's official, and nothing is ever
	going to never happen, because we (Digital) have stated that
	everything is on the table.

	It's pretty bad when a corporate strategy statement sounds like it's
	a quote from Yogi Berra, but that's the way it is. Until something
	clearer comes down the pike, we'll all have to live with the rumors.
	Meanwhile, business suffers.

	Roy

>21Jun94 USA: DEC "TO ANNOUNCE SALE OF ITS RDB DATABASE BUSINESS THIS MONTH".
>Digital Equipment Corp will announce that it is selling its Rdb database
>business this month, PC Week believes.

Going back to the basenote from PC Week, their rumor turned out to be false
(check the date).

michael

    From UK LIVE WIRE:
    
       DIGITAL PLANS SALE OF RDB TO ORACLE
    
        Digital is said to be on the verge of selling its Rdb Vax database
        business to Oracle. The company claims to have sold 40,000 Rdb database
        licences worldwide, and the product is believed to generate annual
        revenues of around $250 million in user support and licence upgrade
        fees. A Digital spokesman said, "Digital has lots of conversation with
        lots of people", however, a source close to the company claimed,
        "It was a done deal weeks ago; I know someone who was working on the
        contracts."
    
        Computing, London. 4th August 1994
        Computer Weekly, London. 4th August 1994
                                                     
    
    Comments?
    �AA

    Ohhh Geezzzzz, here we go again!  Some yahoo says Rdb's been sold and
    the paper prints it.
    
    Why would we do that?  (Hmmm, need money, lots a money)
    Rdb notes file denies it!  (Do they have an option?)
    
    Why won't this rumor go away?
    
    Mike M.

re.25:

>    Why won't this rumor go away?

Because Corporate PR say "no comment". 

Dave.

It's starting to go away, but people keep reprinting the same thing over
and over.

Yesterday a user posted in comp.sys.dec (I think) a follow-up (after he had
asked about the rumor) saying that he had received information that, yes,
Digital was doing a deal with Oracle but it didn't involve Rdb and that a
lot of new things were coming from Rdb in the future.  My own internal
information supports that (indeed, I got three "help wanted" ads from the
Rdb group yesterday.)

					Steve

    Yeah, and Craig Sherhold is trying to get into the Guiness Book of
    Records for having the most business cards.
    
    -s
    
    

    And Rdb engineering posted many job openings yesterday for new
    developments on Rdb and ports to OSF/1, NT/Alpha, and NT/Intel.
    
    If Digital is really commited to this future work, it is beyond me why
    Digital does not come out with a forceful press release to deny this
    stinking rumor. Short of that, the rumor is quite credible.

         <<< BELFST::USER$DISK1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ORACLE_ON_UNIX.NOTE;1 >>>
                                  -< Oracle >-
================================================================================
Note 642.0               Oracle to take control of Rdb ?                 1 reply
MSDOA::SECRIST "RTFC!"                               71 lines   2-AUG-1994 12:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	ANCDSP::"[email protected]"  1-AUG-1994 20:36:20.81
To:	kxovax::secrist
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Oracle over Rdb in INFO-VAX ?

...

Ok, here it is from the front page of Dec Computing (UK publication),
dated 3rd (sic) August.

headline:
Oracle to take control of Rdb

text:
As we went to press, DEC was finalising a deal to sell its Rdb database
to Oracle. The agreement will "effectively kill off Rdb as a product",
said one analyst.

Although neither company would comment on the proposed sale, US analysts
have already received briefings under non-disclosure agreements. One told
us that Oracle is obliged under the terms of the deal to maintain the
installed Rdb base for two years. However, "if users know the product
only has two years to go, they;ll be pretty keen to migrate", he added.

The main attraction for Oracle is presumably the installed base and the
chance to migrate Rdb users to its product. Software houses which work
with both products do not believe Oracle has much to gain from DEC's
technology. "The really clever stuff was Rdbstar and most of that has
now gone" said one. "I don't expect there to be much more development of
Rdb".

Software houses had mixed reactions to the news, some welcoming "one less
database to write to", others claiming that Oracle was becoming "too
powerful". Mike Hudgell, marketing director of Performance Software,
voiced the views of many saying: "Oracle has won the day, period".

For Oracle, the deal wipes out what it once described as "a major 
irritation" in one of its most important user bases, the DEC market.
Although Oracle claims active use of its database far outweighs that
of Rdb on VAX and Alpha, DEC's decision to bundle Rdb with VMS made
comparisons difficult, and sparked off a major market share battle
between the two databases in the late 1980s.

In the past two years there have been strong signs that DEC was
defocusing on Rdb, first dropping its Rdbstar distributed database
project and then forming closer relationships with Oracle and Informix.

/end article


NB: despite its title, this magazine nowadays covers most "midrange" 
    system vendors and sometimes appears to go out of its way not to
    favour Digital.

HTH,

-- 
Roger Barnett

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA09533; Mon, 1 Aug 94 20:37:56 -040
% Received: from post.demon.co.uk by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com (5.65/27May94) id AA17809; Mon, 1 Aug 94 17:27:50 -070
% Received: from natron.demon.co.uk by post.demon.co.uk id aa22857; 2 Aug 94 0:29 GMT-60:0
% Date: Mon, 01 Aug 1994 23:53:48 GMT
% From: Roger Barnett <[email protected]>
% Reply-To: [email protected]
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% To: kxovax::secrist
% Subject: Re: Oracle over Rdb in INFO-VAX ?
% X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10 beta 2
% Lines: 64

>        Digital is said to be on the verge of selling its Rdb Vax database
>        business to Oracle. The company claims to have sold 40,000 Rdb database
>        licences worldwide, and the product is believed to generate annual
>        revenues of around $250 million in user support and licence upgrade
>        fees.

	We actually have about 80,000 licenses sold. I can't comment about
	support revenue, but license upgrades are included in service
	contracts; they're not separate fees.

	Roy

<                                                       it is beyond me why
<    Digital does not come out with a forceful press release to ...
<


and... whats new?

    RE: .28  by DELNI::DISMUKE 
    
    >Yeah, and Craig Sherhold is trying to get into the Guiness Book of
    >Records for having the most business cards.
    
    Gee, Sandy, does this mean we'll read about the Rdb sale in NEXT
    month's Reader's Digest?  (See August issue for Shergold story)
    

re.31:

>        We actually have about 80,000 licenses sold. I can't comment about
>        support revenue, but license upgrades are included in service
>        contracts; they're not separate fees.

In the UK...

Licence upgrades can be seperate fees or part of a Software Upgrade 
Subscription Licence (SUSL) service or a  �Software Update Subscription (SUS) 
service. As far as I can tell, a DS contract does not include licences.

Dave 
�SUS combines MDDS, DS, and SUSL.

We received an official denial to the story in the computer press last week
that Rdb had been sold - in fact the deal had been agreed 2 weeks ago !

Judging by the recent history of rumour/denial/happening, does this give us any
grounds for hope on this subject ? 

    From the August 8 issue of COMPUTERWORLD:
    
    "Who's buying Rdb, Digital's relational database manager?  That's what
    Bill McGrath, among others, wants to know.  McGrath's company, Tolly
    Management, is hosting a conference Oct. 10-12 in Washington to
    coincide with the Rdb "pass-off", he said.  Although he worked with
    Digital to time the conference, "we can't get any commitment" as to the
    buyer, McGrath said.  He said he plans to opent he conference with a
    Rdb representative from Digital and close it with a "mystery man" from
    the new owner.  Meanwhile, many observers are pointing to Oracle and
    Computer Associates as potential buyers."
    
    Mark
    

    From what I read, CA have enough problems digesting Ingres to worry
    about picking up Rdb.
    
    Calvin
    

Do you really think Rdb will be sold having read the software strategy listed
below ? This is public information, so please DISTRIBUTE WIDELY to anybody
inside and outside Digital who may be interested. It is available in the
vtx integrated repository, VTX IR New/Revised SS 'Data Integration'.
The other tp/im products such as DBI, Rally, Datatrieve, CDD/R, DBMS are
there also. Check also 'Transaction Processing' for ACMS, ACMS Desktop, ACMSxp
etc.

_Luc
really fed up with these rumours

================================================================================
    Data Integration Software Strategies			20-JULY-1994
    ------------------------------------			------------
 
    DEC Rdb
        
    SECTION 1. PRODUCT BACKGROUND

    A. HIGH LEVEL PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

    o Product family is composed of the different platform-pair versions
      of Rdb: OpenVMS VAX, OpenVMS Alpha AXP, OSF/1 Alpha AXP, Windows NT
      Alpha AXP, and Windows NT Intel

    o Rdb is a general purpose SQL-compliant relational database 
      management system that supports the Digital environment for 
      demanding applications that include:

    	High transaction loads
    	Very Large (Hundreds of GB) databases
	High Availability
    	Multimedia  
    
    B. CUSTOMER NEEDS ADDRESSED/BENEFITS

    o Customers have the need to execute increasingly high transaction
      volumes within their database management system.

      Rdb is the leading high performance database (3,693 tpsA), and
      has the ability to support large numbers of users in transaction
      processing environments.

    o Databases are growing larger, with many in the multi-gigabyte to
      hundreds of gigabyte range.

      Rdb has the leading large database handling capabilities with support
      for high-speed backup and recovery (> 50 GB per hour), as well as
      numerous management features (including backup and recovery) which 
      operate while users are still on-line.

    o More applications are required to support 7x24 environments.

      Rdb provides robust support for 7x24 environments through the
      following features (not comprehensive list):

	- On-line parallel backup and recovery
	- On-line database modification capabilities
	- Multi-version support, allowing customers to perform rolling
	  single node and cluster upgrades
	- Robust cluster support for node failover accessing the
	  same database

    o Database applications now need to support multimedia objects.

      Rdb supplies industry leading multi-media database capabilities,
      including very large object (multi-gigabyte) storage and the ability
      to take advantage of various hierarchical storage devices, e.g. 
      electronic disk, magnetic disk, WORM devices.

    o Rdb has a proven track-record for demanding applications such as 
      large telecommunications systems, financial transaction systems, 
      manufacturing systems and many other transaction or query-based systems. 

    C.  PRODUCT FAMILY MEMBERS

    DEC Rdb for OpenVMS VAX
    DEC Rdb for OpenVMS Alpha
    DEC Rdb for OSF/1 Alpha
    DEC Rdb for Windows NT Alpha
    DEC Rdb for Windows NT Intel

    D.  INSTALLED BASE/LICENSES SOLD/MARKET POSITION

    o Rdb holds the largest market share on VAX and Alpha platforms.  It
      has been gaining market share continuously for more than 5 years.

      DEC Rdb	- 70,000 licenses

    o Rdb is among the top 5 Digital (revenue) layered software products

    o Rdb supports business/mission critical applications in many of 
      Digital's global 500 customers, e.g. Boeing, Dupont, Alcoa, Lego, 
      Volvo, etc.

    E.  SUPPORT OF CORPORATE SOFTWARE STRATEGY

    o One of the goals of Digital's SW strategy is to provide an 
      easy path for our VAX customers to migrate to Alpha.  Rdb 
      does a very effective job of supporting this with:

    	Binary compatibility 
    	Mixed clusters
    	Mixed versions

    o Another goal of the strategy is to support VAX and Alpha (and future
      Intel) based Rdb customers with continued enhancements and support 
      for key layered software products.  Rdb will continue to be enhanced 
      to deliver additional features and functionality to allow our 
      customers to grow their applications in terms of performance, size, 
      and data type (i.e. multimedia), as well as take advantage of 
      object-oriented technology.

      In addition, the strategy identifies frameworks which solve basic 
      customer problems as they evolve to client/server environments.  
      Rdb plays a strategic role in the Production Integration framework
      as one of the relational databases upon which these client/server
      applications can be constructed.  It's unique ability to support
      high transaction volumes, VLDB, high availability, and robust 
      multimedia environments makes it well positioned to offer in business 
      and mission critical situations.

      Digital also offers database products from our partners to enable
      our prospects and customers a wide range of choice of applications
      and databases on Digital HW and Operating System platform pairs.

    SECTION 2.  PRODUCT STRATEGY OF RECORD

    A. Planned Functionality & Platform Support (12 month timeframe)

    Digital is committed to enhancing Rdb with leading-edge database 
    technology for new and existing customers.  The strategy includes:

    1. Extend the coverage of Rdb applications beyond the OpenVMS Alpha and 
       VAX platforms:
    	
    	    	Shipping Rdb (V6.1) on OSF/1 in September, 1994

    		Shipping Rdb (V6.2) on Windows NT Alpha in December, 1994

    		Shipping Rdb on Windows NT Intel in early CY95.

    		Digital is creating a portable code generator and Common 
    		Operating System Interface (COSI) layer to facilitate the 
    		porting to other platforms (none in addition to the above
		have been committed to at this time).

    2. Provide native client/server capabilities in support of TP-lite
       application environments

    		Engineering Rdb V6.2 to include a multithreaded front end 
		to support TP-lite applications.

    3. Provide leadership support for Very Large Database (VLDB) applications.

    		Increasing backup and restore capabilities over time - Rdb 
       		currently provides parallel backup and restore at over 50 GB 
		per hour.  Gracefull management of 2+ Terabytes is planned 
		for CY95.

    		Enhancing VLDB support through faster restore by area, 
       		improved add/delete tables/areas, and on-line modification of 
       		additional database settings, as well as fast load, parallel 
    		index builds, and operation or logical logging (e.g. B-tree 
    		builds) in support of very large data sets.

    4. Provide leadership support for multimedia database applications.

    	    	Enhancing current multimedia capabilities with external 
    		function call-backs and support for the OLE server API 
    		in V6.1.

    5. Provide leadership performance and price/performance on Alpha 
       platforms.

    		Continuing to enhance performance - Rdb is now the world's
       		fastest database at 3,692 tpsA; including a DBI+Rdb 
       		combination supporting query parallelism in V6.1; will
		deliver TPC-C results in Q1FY95.

    		Improving performance through internal query parallelism, 
    		faster index operations, and OpenVMS 64 bit support.

    6. Offer object-oriented extensions to Rdb.

    		Enhancing external function-callbacks, updatable BLOBS, OLE 
       		client, and basic OBJECT, Value and Text ADTs (Abstract Data 
       		Types) in V6.2 
    
    		Providing support for linking with content-based retrieval 
       		products.
   
    		Providing FILE as a datatype in V6.2 in support of extremely 
       		large objects.
   
    		Including complete Object and Value ADTs, complex objects, 
    		collection types (lists, set, arrays, etc).  Also includes 
    		SQL3 compliance, enhanced ODBC support, and specific data 
    		behavior provided by applications (capture, display, 
    		formatting, compression/decompression).

    B. PRODUCT POSITIONING 

	* Profile of Target Customer

	  Rdb is suitable for medium to large enterprises developing their 
	  own client/server or server based applications.  

	* Key Selling Situation

	  Because of its advanced features Rdb is uniquely positioned to 
	  support applications with high availability, high transaction 
	  volumes, very large databases, and multimedia objects, or some 
	  combination of these characteristics.  Rdb regularly wins in 
	  bids where these requirements have a high priority.

	  Rdb on OpenVMS Alpha and VAX, and the OSF/1 Software Developer kit
	  are available today.  The full OSF/1 kit ships in September, and
	  the Windows NT version ships in December, 1994.  In many cases
	  this combination of platforms, plus the liberal support of industry
	  standard interfaces such as SQL92 and ODBC, qualify Rdb as "Open".
	  If the customer's highest priority is a database which runs on
	  non-Digital server platforms such as HP, IBM, or SUN, then Rdb
	  is not the appropriate solution at this time.

	  Rdb supports over 250 3rd party applications and should be sold
	  as the database of choice along with these applications, for 
	  customers with the high availability, high throughput, 
	  very large database size, or multimedia requirements.

	* Major Differentiators

	o Rdb is the world's fastest database by a factor of two.  Sell it
	  for high transaction volume applications

	o Rdb provides the most robust support for 7x24 environments, 
    	  including numerous on-line (i.e. while users are accessing 
    	  the data) management facilities.

	o Rdb supports very large objects and very large databases.  This is
	  true from a storage perspective (e.g. WORM support), a performance
	  perspective (3,692 tpsA/second on a 700 GB database), a management
	  perspective (e.g. > 50 GB/hour backup-recovery), and a multimedia
	  perspective (e.g. voice, video, document, text from ODBC and SQL).
    		
================================================================================
    

    Playing devil's advocate...
    
    I don't see anything in .-1 that precludes selling off RDB.
    
    All the goals could still be met by a sell-off/partnering agreement.
    
    Apparently some folk haven't picked up on the new DECspeak yet...
    
    'We will deliver'//'continue to support'//'focus on providing'//etc
    don't really imply anything about ownership or investment...
    
    For example, can customers still buy and get support for the DECset
    products from Digital? yes. However, do we own them anymore?
    
    How about VAX DOCUMENT, DECWrite (actually, I think I just saw a
    retirement announcement on it), or CDA??? List gets longer weekly...
    
    Dave

        re: .38

    Let's see, what you posted is a grand plan.  Digital Consulting had a
    'grand plan' last Friday.  I went to Atlanta on Monday, when I
    returned, bam, no more grand plan.

    Do I think Rdb should be sold?  I'll be honest and say I'm torn.  Rdb
    is an excellent product, but it doesn't seem to get the support (for
    whatever reason) at the corporate level that it deserves.  All it takes
    is a change of wind direction.....

    Charlie - I don't know what to expect from management anymore.  Neither
    does the customer.  Had one lie to me on Monday, excuse me, they used
    customer-speak.  They were curious if I could port their application to
    Unix in order to take advantage of workstation graphics.  Confused for
    just a moment, it occurred to me that *they* really, really didn't want
    to go with Digital.  Want to guess why?

All it would take to stop rumors and speculation about the
Rdb sale dead in their tracks is a very simple, clear 4 or 5 word
announcement from the SLT:
"WE WILL (NOT) SELL Rdb."

Think it'll happen?
Naaaaaah!

>All it would take to stop rumors and speculation about the
>Rdb sale dead in their tracks is a very simple, clear 4 or 5 word
>announcement from the SLT:
>"WE WILL (NOT) SELL Rdb."
>
>Think it'll happen?
>Naaaaaah!

	Making such a statement would be irresponsible at best. Consider
	either case: 

	1) if the plan is to sell Rdb, then such an announcement (with no
	details or terms worked out, no contracts signed, etc.) would only
	serve to further panic the customer base, and possible imperil any
	deals in the works. It would also make it difficult to get a good
	deal from potential buyers

	2) if the plan is to not sell Rdb, then such an announcement would
	probably be taken by customers as a commitment by the company. Then,
	if somebody comes along with a truckload of cash and DOES want to
	buy Rdb, the customers will be mighty upset, and will more than
	likely sue Digital for breaching its public promise.

	The fact is that all of software in this company is up in the air.
	Where it will land is anybody's guess, but making premature
	announcements will not serve anybody's interests. What would serve
	EVERYBODY's interests, however, would be to get these things
	resolved ASAP, so that firm commitments *can* be announced to the
	public.

	Roy

>        What would serve
>	EVERYBODY's interests, however, would be to get these things
>	resolved ASAP, so that firm commitments *can* be announced to the
>	public.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say: Make a decision, and stick to it.

I'm getting really REALLY tired of seeing every communication from On High
come out so full of weaselwords that in the end it says NOTHING AT ALL.

I don't see how we gain any credibility at all that way.

Kevin

    Re .41
    
    And would you believe either statement if it were made?
    

Well, there's a bunch of new job postings in RDB engineering. Kinda indicates 
a commitment to keep the product, eh?

    I have been following these rumours with some interest, and have a few
    things to add.
    
    I feel that Digital is held back by having their own database product,
    it makes it very difficult to work with Oracle or another DB vendor
    where the customer wants the 3rd party Database more than it wants
    Digital, a situation that is becoming more common.
    
    I feel that Rdb is held back by that fact that it 'belongs' to Digital
    so is not perceived as a good database in it's own right, more as a good 
    solution if you happen to want/have Digital Hardware.
    
    If Oracle bought Rdb, my believe is that they were after two things, 
    some technology patents, and the large installed base. It is
    interesting to note that VAX/VMS is Oracle's largest installed base
    already. Oracle are a very succesful, but quite aggressive, and also
    are very much a one-product company. They don't sell anything that is
    not connected closely with their core RDBMS. Introducing a second database
    into their portfolio would make no sense at all, unless they intended
    to shut it down as quickly as they could, without losing too many customers.
    
    My views come from my experience in the UK Oracle account team, so are
    likely to be a bit different from other peoples. 
    
    Chris
    
    p.s. The guys at Oracle know no more than we do, and their top
    management in the US dismiss it as "Only a rumour"
    
                                                  

    
    In our "Funeral for DC" meeting here in Dallas on Tuesday I asked Rich
    Lenting (sp?) pointedly "Is RDB going to be sold?".  The answer I got
    was "We're not prepared to make a public statement on that yet" (not
    verbatim, I'm sure, but close).  It sure wasn't a "No".

re: Rdb job postings

>Not really.  Could indicate that a bunch of people got nervous about the
>rumours and flew the coop.  More likely though, those are reqs that were
>cut ages ago and just got "unfrozen" by some random administrative act, and
>the owners of the reqs are scrambling to fill them before the freeze up
>again...

	Speculation sure doesn't help things in this matter. The fact is
	that we have lost a few engineers over the past few months, as other
	companies have been understandably interested in hiring away
	talented developers. Our current job postings are in response to
	this attrition, and are not simply old requsitions that were
	recently unfrozen.

	The fact is that we are confident in the future of our group, and
	that we believe that these job openings represent outstanding
	opportunities for talented people. We're not just back-filling here,
	and we're not just looking for warm bodies to fill time until a
	decision comes down. We are looking for top notch people to help us
	carry out the plans and strategies that we are fully confident we
	will be able to pursue.

	Roy

    IMO, Rdb is part of DEC core competency.
    
    The three big SW breadwinners are:  VMS, DECNET, and Rdb.  There's
    very little overlap between them.  Keep your eye on these three for
    a couple of paragraphs.
    
    There are three ways a "data service" can provide value to the user
    of that service.  (I intend, by this, to extend the concept of 
    client/server to things that hppen at the board and chip level
    as well as its popular meaning).  The three ways are:
    
        PROCESSING, STORAGE, and COMMUNICATION
    
    None of these three concepts can be derived from the other two.
    
    PROCESSING adds value to the input by reducing the amount of
    irrelevant data mixed in with the relevant data.  What's relevant
    depends on the intended use.  Techniques for reducing irrelevance
    include:  summarizing or aggregating, selecting, and reformatting.
    
    STORAGE adds value to the input by keeping it around until
    (a subset of) it is needed.
    
    COMMUNICATION adds value to the input by moving it to where it's
    needed (or to the person whoo needs it).
    
    Now, look back:
    
       VMS facilitates processeing
       DECNET facilitates communication
       RDB facilitates storage
    
    People who come up with significant applications often need all
    three.
    
    You better not get rid of any of these without a good replacement.
    If you do, you will hurt the other two.
    
    Dave
    

    Have I heard that some of the support in Colorado has been TFSO'd?

    Processing, storage, communication...
    
    Maybe Digital should get into cash registers. They combine
    all three.

    Re .51
    
    I don't know...have you?

    VMS ==> Unix/NT (market dictates this to us, so as another note
    		     put it, adapt!)
    
    DECnet ==> TCP/IP (can't believe you believe DECnet is a bread winner
    			today, IP will even replace IPX at some point)
    
    Rdb ==> partner with Oracle/CA/Sybase, like all our competitors do
    
    I have always thought that when you get in trouble, start looking at
    what your competitors are doing, start doing the same thing until 
    you come up with a better stategy/widget.  Rdb falls into this
    category,  we would be foolish not to sell it at this point.  SUN has
    Wall Street all but locked up because Sybase runs on SUN.  Until 
    Sybase runs on OSF, the doors will remain closed.
    
    Brad.

re: .50

When you say DECnet, i assume you're talking about Phase IV?  Phase V is a
D-O-G.  Put it out of its misery, somebody, please!

								- paul

    re: backfilling positions
    
    We've been hiring people for the past couple of months.
    
    re: hardware vendors and databases
    
    IBM does a good job at marketing their own databases

    I guess I should have said, do what your *successful* competitors
    are doing, IBM is in decline too, just not as steep due to their
    immense customer base...

    re: .57
    
    I believe that their database business is successful.
    
    michael

  >  Maybe Digital should get into cash registers. They combine
  >  all three.
    
    
    Name a fired salesman from a cash register company who landed on
    his feet in the information industry as CEO of another company.
    Extra points:  in what year?
    
    Dave
    

    Thomas Watson Sr.?
    Don't know the year.

  >  Maybe Digital should get into cash registers. They combine
  >  all three.

	Actually, we ARE in the cash register business. We call them "point
	of sale terminals," and I believe that Toys 'R' Us is one of our big
	accounts in that space.

	Roy

    I went to the TOYS'R'US superstore in Methuen.
    
    While wandering around,  I walked past a room off in the corner whose
    door was open and saw a very large DEC network running, complete with
    terminals, DELNIs, etc.   Course I was dumb-founded that anyone would
    leave the control room to their business wide open and unattended. 

A friend, ex-DEC, just told me DEC is selling off it's database
business to Oracle. 

When did you hear this (thinking it was part of the older rumor stuff)?

2 or 3 days ago the friend says. Heard from a friend of theirs (current
DECcie) that a certain office had to let go several DB specialists (to Oracle)
because of what the contract with Oracle says. Not finalized yet, they said.
But they had heard specifics about a/the contract with Oracle.

Hmmm, I said.

    
    yeah, should be announced in a couple weeks.
    

>    The three big SW breadwinners are:  VMS, DECNET, and Rdb. 

??? 

You just give here the reason why DEC is in such a bad position on the market.

    Re: .65
    
    I'm not locked into the past.  
    
    Perhaps I chose the wrong three.  Perhaps if I used figures
    on revenue for the last year, different products might pop
    to the top.  I dunno.  
    
    I *do* know that it would be a bad idea to tell the established
    customer base for those three products that the new Digital isn't
    interested in helping them migrate ahead from the products that
    the old DEC recently sold them.
    
    Pick a successor for any of the above.  Show new customers
    why they should choose your implementation over one of your
    competitor's.  Show existing customers why they should stay with
    you, and why you can help them guarantee continuity (in what
    really matters) between  the present and the future.
    
    The one message you won't get away with is:
    
      "When we sold you that last year, you and we were both stupid.
       We're smarter now, but we don't know about you.  See Figure 1."
    
    Dave
    
    

Re. .65

Too sad to see that you are still stuck in the 'Unix will save the world'
holy war. I think today most people agree on a more subtile approach,
taking into account the long term interests of first of all our
customers ( installed base and new ) and Digital as a company.

_Luc
    

Luc,

Well, it seems the problem within Digital is simply that it is not possible to
say anything without being directly classified ...

I don't have any problem with any war ... I never said 'Unix will save the
world' ...

More subtile approach ... Please learn me ... I'm very interested to learn
things from people who cannot recognize the faults they have made in the past.

I'm thinking about the long term ... and I'm sorry if I cannot agree with
someone who writes "The three big SW breadwinners are:  VMS, DECNET, and Rdb."
because you simply ignore one important part of the market which is still
growing and growing.

So a war ? I don't see any war here ...

>I think today most people agree on a more subtile approach,
>taking into account the long term interests of first of all our
>customers ( installed base and new ) and Digital as a company.

Well said ... but 'La Palice' would have been said the same ... 
The problem is *what* things, decision, investments, ... people will do to take
into accounts the installed base *AND* the new customers ...

Marc.

OK.
First, Marc: 
The statement was:
"The three big breadwinners are: VMS, Rdb, DECnet"
That is a statement of current fact, not a projection of
the future state of things.
Restated, it says,
"The three software products with the biggest profit THIS YEAR are
VMS, Rdb, DECnet"

It should be obvious to all that a company which does not invest in its future
is doomed...

As to Rdb taking the UNIX market by storm, Marc has a good point in that
the credibility of Rdb has a big strike against it in that it comes from Digital.

Let me put it this way:
I worked in DC when it was PSS.  
My main customer had standardized on Oracle as their corporate database.  This
was NOT negotiable.
It took several MONTHS for me to get over a knee-jerk reaction of "We shouldn't
listen to anything the DEC guy says, he'll just try to talk us into buying Rdb
or more DEC hardware..." even when I was giving valid advice/criticism given
their configurations.

Also, Rdb is several YEARS if not decades behind in terms of market penetration.

I hope it works.

Having worked with both products, I'd MUCH rather work with Rdb.

But we're going to have to market the heck out of it or its doomed because
our competitors are sure as heck loading up for bear even as we speak...

>It should be obvious to all that a company which does not invest in its future
>is doomed...

Did I ask to stop investments for the above products ? ...

I said that Digital should stop loosing money by puting resources to port this
outstanding successfull DB product on different Unixes ...
because it will not help us to make more profit than for example to put this
amount of funding in the OSF/1 cluster program.

re Note 3185.50 by BABAGI::CRESSEY:

>     IMO, Rdb is part of DEC core competency.
>     
>     The three big SW breadwinners are:  VMS, DECNET, and Rdb.  There's
>     very little overlap between them.  Keep your eye on these three for
>     a couple of paragraphs.
  
        Don't confuse current money-makers with "core competencies."

        However, more importantly, don't confuse current "core
        competencies" with the things Digital should be doing in the
        future.

        Two of Digital's recent big successes were in PCs and storage
        devices.  These are both areas in which Digital was decidedly
        incompetent until we made a commitment to excel.  One could
        also argue that Digital was incompetent in leading-edge
        microprocessors before Alpha.

        Commitment and drive beat traditional competencies any day.

        Bob

    Re: .71
    
    >    Don't confuse current money-makers with "core competencies."

    >    However, more importantly, don't confuse current "core
    >    competencies" with the things Digital should be doing in the
    >    future.
    
    Ok, Ok, a couple of points well taken.  If I had to classify
    VMS, DECNET, and Rdb as "Cash Cows" or "Rising Stars", I'd
    almost certainly call 'em "cash cows".
    
    My real point was: will selling Rdb help or hurt in terms of
    what's left after the sale.  I believe that it will hurt.
    My reason for this is that a software company without a 
    credible RDBMS is a minor player, IMO.  To my knowledge,
    DEC doesn't have a credible alternative to Rdb to sell
    on any platform.  (I guess that raises the question,
    "Is the new Digital a software company?")
    
    Now, you *could* say, "we don't do databases anymore" but
    Microsoft does, and CA does, and Borland does, and Novell does
    (I think).  There *could* also be a product being quietly prepared
    for announcement that would blow my whole argument, but as I say,
    to my knowledge.... (no I'm not asking)
    
    So maybe I shouldn't have called Rdb a "core comptency".  But 
    SW engineering *is* a core comptency, RDBMS is still central
    to offering SW products, and RDB is still our flagship.  So
    you can't sell Rdb to Oracle without, IMO, damaging one of
    our core competencies.
    
    For the two examples of success you offered, one of 'em was sold
    and the other was kept.  Why?  I think there's a reason, and I
    think it has to do with "core competencies".  The disk unit
    (where I work) was, and is a success, but it's success was
    less synergistic with digital's success than, say, PC sales.
    
    So, if your objection is "Rdb doesn't fit the criteria for
    'core competency'", I'd have to agree.  But if the question 
    is:  "does Digital make system software to support processing
    (OSs), to support communicating (networks), and to support
    storage (DBMSs)?", then I hope the answer is yes.  Now the
    future for DBMSs could easily be an OODBMs (of which DEC
    has one, but I don't know enough to call it a "Rising Star")
    
    So I'm not speaking to the issue of "what should we do for the
    future?"  I'm speaking to "should we get rid of Rdb?". 
    
    Hope this clarifies, a little.
    
    Dave
    
    
    
               

re: .72

>    Now the future for DBMSs could easily be an OODBMs (of which DEC has
>    one, but I don't know enough to call it a "Rising Star")

OODBMSs could be the future but it will take a while. Most/all of the relational
products are putting in SQL3 Abstract Data Type Extensions anyway so that you'll
have some oo functionality in your RDBMS (although it won't be as fast due to
most implementations layering the object stuff on top of the relational model).

michael

    re: .72
    
    You asked the key question?
    
    "...  on any platform.  (I guess that raises the question,
        "Is the new Digital a software company?")"
    
    I would say that based on messages from Palmer on DVNs, etc., the answer 
    is NO!
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    Debbie
    

Re: "Is the New Digital a software company?"
No.
And neither was the old one.

    Re: .74, and .75
    
    Aha! You just gave the key answer!
    
    If the new Digital is NOT a software company, then it makes 
    eminent good sense for Rdb to be sold to a company that IS
    a software company, for reasons somewhat parallel to the sense
    in selling the storage business to Quantum.
    
    If .74 and .75 are right (and I'm not saying they aren't)
    then I withdraw my ENTIRE opinion about selling Rdb.
    
    Now the next question that comes into my head (thinking
    like a customer) is:  What kind of software should you
    buy from a company that isn't a software company?
    
    Dave
    

>    Now the next question that comes into my head (thinking
>    like a customer) is:  What kind of software should you
>    buy from a company that isn't a software company?
    
    Two categories come to mind:
    
    1) Software you can't get from a software company (say, an op sys or
       compiler that runs on the hardware you've got).
    2) Software that's not unique, but good enough, and allows you to meet
       other business criteria such as one-stop shopping, continued
       relationship with a long-time partner, etc.
    
    Much of the world may be single-user, commodity-market, mail-order PCs
    (buy the cheapest of everything and don't sweat service till it breaks), 
    but much of it isn't.
    
    -Mark

    Re: .76 How about software that allows the hardware you're buying to be
    utilized to its maximum efficiency? We have stated that we WILL be the
    leader in client/server environments. That would imply any software
    well sell would have to support those environments (i.e. ops sys,
    networks, sys/net mgmt., middleware, etc). We can leave the application
    level stuff to people who do it much better than we have been doing.
    
    Sound reasonable?
    Debbie
    

    	If you are not a software company (customer perception) then
    customers will not buy software from you unless they have to.
    
    	So, we have OSF/1, NT and VMS. On both the PDP-11 and VAX there
    were several versions of Unix not produced by DEC, and we don't own NT
    either, so why should customers come to us for any software at all?
    
    	Well, with VMS and Rdb combined you have the fastest and most
    robust data management in the industry.
    
    	If we sell off Rdb *and* (maybe as a consequence) become perceived
    as "not a software company" then we are in direct competition with
    Intel, and have nothing else to offer. I am not sure we can beat Intel
    on their home ground, and it is very obvious that we don't need 80.000
    employees to beat Intel on their home ground.
    
    	Once upon a time customers used to ask "if I give your machine a
    floating point addition, can it do it quickly?". Sometimes we were able
    to answer "Yes, we currently have the best in the industry".
    
    	Now they are more likely to ask "if I give your machine an SQL
    query can it do it quickly", and currently we can answer "Yes, we 
    currently have the best in the industry with AXP, VMS and Rdb".
    
    	We can also tell them that they can skip any one or two of the
    three, and still have good performance.
    
    	If we get rid of Rdb then we can't even answer the question.
    "Dunno, go ask Oracle!".

    Re: .78
    
    I'm not understanding you.
    
    What is "application level stuff?"  Does that include an "RDBMS"?
    
    How can one be a "leader in client/server" without a database
    server?  How can one provide a database server without a DBMS?
    
    Dave
    

    Re: .-1 Of course you need a database server to be in the client/server
    game....but there are A LOT of good ones out there...who says it has to
    be RDB and who says it has to be written by Digital? Sybase and Oracle
    seem to be doing OK in the market as a "layered product" on other
    vendors' client/server platforms. All we have to care about is if the
    database servers sun on our platforms, noth that we own/write it.
    
    Debbie
    

    
    I use and like Rdb, but that's not the point.
    
    HP is profitable with people buying their boxes and
    buying Sybase/Oracle/Ingres to run on them.
    
    The SLT is trying to emulate HP's success in the box
    selling business, where HP has demonstrated that owning
    the DBMS is not a requirement for success.
    
    Palmer has stated that we must quit competing with our
    partners (such as Oracle), and Rdb competes with Oracle.
    From his perspective, selling Rdb to Oracle is a win for
    Digital, Oracle and the customer.
    
    (Debate the last item if you want, but I'll bet lunch that the
    Rdb post-sale justification will include how it's a better deal
    for the customer.)

    re: .82
    
    HP has their own database, their own oo database and their own data
    integration software.
    
    michael

    
    >HP has their own database, their own oo database and their own data
    >    integration software.
        
    Yes they do.  But at what market share?  My understanding is that
    the majority of RDBMS's sold for HP boxes isn't HP's, but is
    one of the database vendors.  
    
    But you're probably closer to the truth than I am, so I'd appreciate
    hearing of any market share data that you have.

    re: .84
    
    I don't know what the marketshare for Allbase is but I think it must be
    smaller than Oracle, Sybase, Informix, etc. The point is that they
    manage relationships between their own products and third-party
    products well, as does IBM.
    
    I heard about their OO product in a class I was taking and it is a
    commercialization of a research product in the mid-80s. My guess is
    that it's a niche product.
    
    They have been doing a lot of promotion of their integration product
    lately. I believe their product competes with our Database Integrator
    product, Sybase's OmniSQL and Oracle Glue.
    
    michael

Can anyone name a Digital software product that has been sold off AND 
done better (market share, profit, customer perception))? 
  Whatever happended to VAX COBOL GENERATOR?  

    
    
    The VAX COBOL GENERATOR was sold to Touch Technologies quite a while
    ago. I think it is selling as well as there as it would have here. 
    
    DECSET has been sold off to a division of EDS and they are actively
    maintaining and developing it. They probably have more resources to
    give to it than we do...
    
    Bob
    

    re: .82
    
    
    >I use and like Rdb, but that's not the point.
    
    Agreed.
    
    >HP is profitable with people buying their boxes and
    >buying Sybase/Oracle/Ingres to run on them.
    
    Ok, so that proves it IS possible.  (I'm disregarding
    HP's database mentioned in another response.)
    
    
    >The SLT is trying to emulate HP's success in the box
    >selling business, where HP has demonstrated that owning
    >the DBMS is not a requirement for success.
    
    But Digital does not have a very good track record at emulating
    other people's success.  If memory serves, the last successful
    company Digital tried to emulate was IBM, right???
    
    Pehaps, the new Digital will be different, but how?
    
    >Palmer has stated that we must quit competing with our
    >partners (such as Oracle), and Rdb competes with Oracle.
    >From his perspective, selling Rdb to Oracle is a win for
    >Digital, Oracle and the customer.
    
    This is pretty persauasive.  Not just because the CEO said it
    (although that DOES count for something, IMO) but also because
    it makes sense.  Of course, the same argument would apply to 
    a "partner" that was not a SW company, like Intel.
    
    
    Now explain something else:  why would Oracle want to buy Rdb?
    To get the customer base?  To get the technology?  To get the
    engineers?  To get rid of a headache?
    
    (Debate the last item if you want, but I'll bet lunch that the
    Rdb post-sale justification will include how it's a better deal
    for the customer.)

    Of course! It's *always* good for the customer when suppliers
    agree not to expend their efforts in wasteful, redundant competition!
    Lookit the telephone company (before the breakup), 
    Cable TV, and health care (whoops, I spoke too soon, ROLLBACK,
    ROLLBACK, ROLLBACK Da..it!)
    
    Dave
                                         

re: .86

>Can anyone name a Digital software product that has been sold off AND 
>done better (market share, profit, customer perception))? 

How about Vivace, in Europe?

    re: .88
>    But Digital does not have a very good track record at emulating
>    other people's success.  If memory serves, the last successful
>    company Digital tried to emulate was IBM, right???
    
    	No, the last successful company we tried to emulate was Arthur
    Andersens, or maybe Dell or Compaq. We gave up trying to emulate IBM
    when the VAX 8800 wasn't an astounding success. At the moment I think
    we are intending to try to emulate Intel.

RE: .72

 >   (I guess that raises the question,
 >   "Is the new Digital a software company?")

The answer to this one, at least, is clear and unambiguous.  The new 
Digital is NOT a software company.  It does software for two reasons 
only:

1) to leverge harware sales

2) to continue existing, software-based, profitable revenue streams

Our operating system and compiler efforts fit in category (1).  A lot 
of our traditional software products fit in category (2).  Rdb could 
arguably be placed in both categories.

For proposed new software ventures, the question must be asked 
whether they are being done for either of the above reasons.  If the 
answer is no, then the new Digital should not be pursuing them.

--PSW

    Does the "leverage hardware sale" criteria really hold water?
    
    To the best of my knowledge, any piece of software needs hardware
    to run on otherwise it will just sit there and puff and puff until
    it turns blue in the face.
    
    In other words, _any_ piece of software could arguably "leverage
    hardware sales".
    
    And finally, assuming Digital wants to leverage Digital hardware
    sales and not competitors hardware sales one could even argue that
    Digital should only produce Digital hardware proprietary software.
    
    re roelof

>    And finally, assuming Digital wants to leverage Digital hardware
>    sales and not competitors hardware sales one could even argue that
>    Digital should only produce Digital hardware proprietary software.

If it follows this path, it has 3 choices (because of low SW volumes,
which translates into much higher per-unit development costs relative
to commodity products):

    - Significantly less functionality.

    - Significantly higher cost.

    - Taking a loss on each sale.  (Note: Digital may be willing to do
      this, but 3rd parties aren't.  The 3rd party equivalent, when
      it's even an option, is to pay them to port, and they won't
      necessarily be interested.)

Or some combination.  Software is a very volume-intensive activity.
It's a real losing proposition to try to compete against volume players
with non-volume software.

Compared to PC software, DEC is currently using the first two items
(compare DEC software development tools vs. something like Visual C++.)
This frequently leads to questions from hardware people about "why
is DEC SW so expensive".  Software needs volume (just like semiconductors)!

One of the real ironies is that a lot of people seem to have it in
their minds that the reason why VAXes were successful was hardware.
You need to ask why we were able to sell so many VAXes at half the
performance and twice the price of Sun workstations (just for example).
The answer doesn't lie in hardware...  (or just better performance or
price/performance)

One potential long term view of Digital is to become nothing but two
divisions of a "hardware company" (a rough combination of Intel [with
much less fabrication capacity] and Compaq).  The only software work
would be technical assistance to Microsoft, Borland, etc., to help
them port.  This seems like a losing proposition because it says that
the marginal performance advantage of Alpha (which is only available
at a VERY high mark-up relative to Pentium), we have to invest enough
to overcome lack of compatibility with the x86 *from the end user's
perspective*.

Another possible path is for Digital to remain in the software business,
but ensure that the software business is treated as a stand-alone entity
(just like the semiconductor and systems businesses need to be, and disks
were.)  As long as customers see "linkage", at least some will see problems,
and they're probably right.)  The "Digital advantage" would be that we
integrate the various "core competencies" to *be able* to produce complete
solutions.  Notice the distinction between being *able* to sell all-Digital,
and *requiring* Digital piece "A" if Digital piece "B" is used.  For example,
what if DEC disks could only have been used with DEC systems...

In this context, having a "network division" and a "database systems"
division that were free to produce volume products on all platforms
makes some sense.  However, things really do need to be run as effectively
independent companies (with identified direct competitors), with
the exception that the general policy is to produce your "x" (chips/
hardware/software) for the company in addition to for the general market.
(e.g. disks for Digital and 3rd parties, semiconductors for Digital
and 3rd parties, systems for Digital and 3rd parties, and software
for Digital and 3rd parties.)

Part of the problem with pursuing this is that software has been "held
hostage" to hardware at DEC for so long, it isn't clear that a number
of pieces of software would be capable of dealing with this model (though
there appear to be a number that are - and Rdb may well be one.)

Keeping the software hostage to the hardware has other disadvantages
as well - namely the status as a competitor not being clear (take
Rdb and Oracle, for example.)

Are there any companies that might want to buy RDB and NOT kill it?  Would it
fit in with any non-Oracle company?  That would seem like a better route.

							- paul

P.s. i saw something in yesterday's news about Sequoia wanting to either buy
	our fault-tolerant Alpha line (not sure if that was the whole business
	or if they just wanted to resell our systems)...at any rate, it sounds
	like the sell-offs are not finished yet

    .92
    
    Unless you see software as a seperate productline with own engineering,
    marketing, support and P&L of course. That would make it independent
    from the HW. See how IBM does that with DB2, that also runs on HP
    boxes.
    
    Henny

>P.s. i saw something in yesterday's news about Sequoia wanting to either buy
>	our fault-tolerant Alpha line (not sure if that was the whole business
>	or if they just wanted to resell our systems)...at any rate, it sounds
>	like the sell-offs are not finished yet

    DEC is selling off the FT business. The only "marketable" aspect
    of DEC's Fault tolerant portfolio is an unannounced alpha based 
    fault tolerent system. I guess, since there was an official press
    release, this deserves it's own topic.
 

RE: .95

That is a business model also pursued by SUN, which spun its software 
business off into the subsidiary Solaris.  Given the very different 
business models that software and hardware have, I think that there 
are only two viable ways to go:

- pick either software or hardware as a business and get rid of
  all software except the bare minimum that a hardware vendor must
  do to support its hardware sales (if you picked hardware), or
  all of your hardware development/sales (if you picked software.
  This is what Digital seems to be doing.  We have chosen hardware.

- run the hardware and software sides of the company as independent
  business units.  This is what SUN has done.

--PSW

    	And how many hardware platforms is Solaris sold on?

Solaris is running on ALPHA ...

At least, it has been ported to Alpha and it runs ... 
The commercial deal between SunSoft and Digital never came out ...

Digital wants to make volumes with Alpha but does not want to have an OS
concurrent ... 

Normal when a company wants to do everything ...

    Solaris runs on 3-4 different chips/systems (counting a SPARC & Clones
    as 1)
    
    Mark
    

    re: .85 by me
    
    I've been informed that Oracle Glue is more of an API, and that their
    distributed product goes by another name.
    
    michael

        This morning 25 August 1994 CNBC indicated that DEC was sell a software
    business to Oracle for $100M.  It didn't say RDB by name, it just eluded to
    a software business.
    
    Anyone know the specifics?

Today's Wall Street Journal indicates that a preliminary deal has been struck, 
wherein DEC is selling Rdb to Oracle.

    read page B8 of the WSJ. It refers in details to the agreement to sell 
    Rdb to Oracle for about $100M, "people familiar with the discussions
    said."
    
    I also talks about the sale of the Oliverri shares, Fidelity purchase
    of MRO4, and Digital's purchase of rights to use Proteon
    internetworking software for "several million dollars."

    If it is for real, I'm sure we'll announce it, so what's the point of
    more speculating? 
    
    --bonnie

	   Digital reaches deal to sell unit - paper

RTf  8/25/94 1:57 AM  

    NEW YORK, Aug 25 (Reuter) - Digital Equipment Corp has a preliminary
agreement to sell its database software business to Oracle Systems Corp <ORCL.O>
for approximately $100 million, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people
familiar with the discussions.
    The sale of the unit, which had $75 million in revenues last year, should
raise cash and aid Digital's balance sheet at a time when it faces large
restructuring costs, the paper said.
    Sources close to the deal told the paper that a letter of intent had not yet
been signed.
    -- New York Newsdesk 212-603-3310
 REUTER

Copyright 1994 Reuters America Inc.  All rights reserved. 

    Remember, this is rumor.
    
    Mike

    gee Mike, it's no longer June 21st.  What was "rumor" then may be
    "negotiating, but no deal" today.
    
    Mark

    As recently as 2 years ago, Rdb was in the top ten software moneymakers
    for Digital.  Rdb leverages significant sales of additional hw, sw, 
    services.  If Rdb is sold, then this clearly sends a message about the
    importance of Digital building software products.
    
    If software at Digital means compilers and operating systems, then we 
    have given up on many opportunities - especially the growing database 
    market, which we are competitive in.  The information age is exploding
    right now.  It's the perfect time to get aggressive.  Digital should buy
    Oracle ! 

    
    Here's the extract from UK livewire;
    
    
        Digital was up $1 1/4 to $24 1/8 after agreeing to sell its
    	database software business to Oracle.
    
        Financial Times, London. 26th August 1994
    

    	If it's in the FT, then it must now be official.
    
    
    	Max.
    
    

    no it is not official until corporate officers have announced it.
    No such reports thus far have been attributed to anyone who wants
    to be quoted.
    
    ed

    It is not official - unless you can put in here the Digital press
    release that states it is so. Sorry you have so much faith in the FT
    but this looks like a regurgitation of the WSJ's report. And not a very 
    faithful one at that.
    
    /phil

I have asked Livewire to remove this from VTX as it is only rumor. They have
agreed. 

Nothing is offical until I sing. (I'm the fat man)

Larry

    I seen it on LIVEWIRE this morning...does that make it offical?
    

    It was rumor.  This was pointed out to LIVEWIRE and the report has been
    removed.
    
    ed

Why do you want to remove the rumors ?

Rumors *exists* on the market and are related by the international press.
Why do you want to close your eyes about it ? It's at least a *real* rumor ! And
had as result an increase of our stock share ...

So let this info being distributed internally, but of course stress it's only a
rumor ... 

Marc.

    As I recall the report didn't even identify itself as a rumor.
    
    You want something like "this is an Official Rumor"?
    
    ed

    re: .116
    
    >>> Why do you want to remove the rumors?
    
    Because until something is actually signed, even the most diligently
    pursued sales deal is not official and is, from a business perspective,
    nothing more than rumor.  Nobody can make reliable decisions based on
    any rumor or proposed deal because you never know when it might fall
    through. 
    
    I have heard a reliable report from a friend of mine that a deal to
    sell a much smaller product to a local company fell through after the
    intent-to-buy was signed but before the final, official contract
    because Digital's legal department felt the price wasn't good enough. 
    The other company couldn't offer more.  No deal.  Any investor,
    customer, supplier, or anybody else who had made plans based on that
    deal going through had to go back and start over. 
    
    Premature press rumors about the proposed EDS-CA merger managed to
    squash the deal.  It might have fallen through anyway, but everyone,
    even the press, agreed that premature publicity and scrutiny were the
    direct cause. 
    
    --bonnie

Re. VTX and RDB rumor

The text on the bottom of the Live Wire news screen clearly states:

 "LIVE WIRE is a daily news service, giving a synopsis of Press comments
  about Digital, its competitors, and the computer industry. Digital does
  not necessarily agree with comments made by the Press in these reports."

So it was just a Press comment. No need to delete it if it was extracted 
from a newspaper.

Sorin

>    Premature press rumors about the proposed EDS-CA merger managed to
>    squash the deal.  It might have fallen through anyway, but everyone,
>    even the press, agreed that premature publicity and scrutiny were the
>    direct cause. 

I totally agree but the problem is that the press has already talked about it !

My point is that when the WSj and the FT have written that Digital *seems* to
discuss with Oracle to sell RDB, WHY do you want to avoid internal Digital
people knowing the above through VTX, ... ?

Digital's responsability is to inform their people about what the market knows !

It's a *real* rumor ... You may discuss whatever you want but the rumor is there
and it's beter we *all* know it before learning it from customers/prospects ...

>    You want something like "this is an Official Rumor"?

Yes ! Beter the above than learn it from a customer/prospect ...

Marc.

There was a brief note in the Boston Globe today, referring to the WSJ article.
I don't have it in front of me, but it said that neither company would comment
on the rumor; it also said that a Digital spokesperson (named, but I don't
remember the name) said that the company was a couple of weeks away from making
a broad announcement about the future of Digital's software business.

						Brian

    I would imagine the Oracle customer base is really excited about the
    prospect of being able to convert to RDB.  Not only do they have access
    to a better RDBMS but the more "native" performance on Alpha will of
    course be a major advantage as well.
    
    In the short term, I would imagine the Oracle sales reps will be
    beating the streets selling Oracle licenses so that the customers will
    be able to take advantage of low cost migration strategies to RDB.
    
    It's a classic example of a reverse takeover where both companies win.

    >>> My point is that when the WSj and the FT have written that Digital
    >>> *seems* to discuss with Oracle to sell RDB, WHY do you want to avoid
    >>> internal Digital people knowing the above through VTX, ... ?
    
    Well, for starters, the Financial Times extract wasn't speculating, or
    reporting on the rumor, it stated the rumor as fact, and as a done
    deal.  If it had said the stock price rose on *reports* that Digital
    would do something, that would be different.  
    
    But even assuming it was phrased as a report of rumors, still what we
    discuss as a rumor among ourselves gets distorted and expanded, and
    then it reaches somebody who doesn't know it's a rumor and who acts on
    it as if it was a fact.  Not to mention that lots of people, DEC
    employees included, assume that if something's printed in a reputable
    financial paper, or in VTX, it must be true.  Possibly the hedging of
    bets that accompanies rumors -- the "What if it is true?" is more
    damaging than the outright belief.  
    
    Before this summer, I agreed with you.  But the more I've seen of the
    incidental damage that careless speculation can do, the more I doubt
    my own position.  Before the EDS/CA thing, I thought, "What harm can it
    do to admit you're talking to somebody else?"  Well, quite a lot, it
    seems.  
    
    Another example:  Earlier this summer when AVASTOR was the subject of
    some sale rumors, I talked to a sales support person I know who was
    afraid to quote Digital storage products to a customer of his because
    he couldn't be sure he was selling a good product.  He didn't really
    care if we did sell out the group as long as he was sure the buyer
    would support our products as well as we could, but until he was sure
    he wasn't going to be pushing our stuff.   
    
    Who knows whether there was any truth behind this particular rumor?  It
    only lasted a couple of days and went away.  Did someone knock on our
    door and say they'd give us a bag of beans for our storage business? 
    Did we go out with hat in hand begging for buyers?  Were we three days
    from an agreement when it fell through?  It doesn't even matter now.  
    But it cost us a couple of sales, a bit of good will.  How many times
    does it have to be repeated to add up to a significant loss? 
    
    Now I do agree that we need to do more toward keeping accurate
    information in front of the people who have to deal directly with the
    customers.  Maybe some higher level should have issued some kind of
    directive that says, "There are lots of rumors on this subject
    circulating; be sure you've read the policy statement in VTX IR and use
    that if your customers bring it up."  That way the people on the firing
    line would at least be prepared, and would not, as you point out, be
    learning it from customers and prospects.  
    
    But I also have more faith now than I did in July that there will be an
    announcement made when important things happen.  That's really the
    issue -- people don't trust our corporate leadership to tell them about
    things that affect them.  
    
    --bonnie

    Does HP have its own DB or does it reply totally on third-party?
    
    re .-1
    According to CNBC today, the reason the stock rose to 24+ today (9 AM
    PST) was because DEC followed Compaq and IBM and lowered its PC prices.
    

    >Does HP have its own DB or does it reply totally on third-party?
    
    They have their own database and they have their own oo database too.
    
    michael

>>   <<< Note 3185.122 by OTOOA::MOWBRAY "This isn't a job its an Adventure" >>>
                                -< well done ! >-

>>    I would imagine the Oracle customer base is really excited about the
>>    prospect of being able to convert to RDB.  Not only do they have access
>>    to a better RDBMS but the more "native" performance on Alpha will of
>>    course be a major advantage as well.
    
>>    In the short term, I would imagine the Oracle sales reps will be
>>    beating the streets selling Oracle licenses so that the customers will
>>    be able to take advantage of low cost migration strategies to RDB.
    
    However, I've also heard that Oracle's plan would be to kill Rdb after
    buying it, eliminating their competetiton in this way.

    Yeah, rdB probably has the same fate of the Jeep pickup truck line
    after Chrysler bought AMC.

   re .126 about Oracle killing Rdb:
    
    if the rumour proves to be true, Oracle would make a big mistake by not
    taking advantage of the numerous advantages DEC Rdb has on other
    database systems. As one of our main competitors in the database arena
    they surely know that. 

RE: DEC stock price increase

DEC stock went up 1-1/4 points because of positive comments from stock 
market analyst Dan Dorfman (the guy who writes columns for USA Today as well 
as other things), who predicted the stock price may go as high as $50/share 
over the next year.


RE: .106 ("wrong strategy")

Indeed, Rdb leverages significant sales.  That is why "leverages significant 
hardware sales" was one of the criteria I listed for why we should do any 
particular software product.  By those criteria, a very good argument can be 
made for keeping Rdb.

    If software at Digital means compilers and operating systems, then we 
    have given up on many opportunities - especially the growing database 
    market, which we are competitive in.  The information age is exploding
    right now.  It's the perfect time to get aggressive.  Digital should buy
    Oracle ! 

Focusing the business means giving up some opportunities in favor of others. 
We are focusing on hardware, and that means letting go of most software.  It 
certainly means that the LAST thing we should do is buy Oracle, or any other 
software concern!

--PSW

    	Any bets that the Rdb engineering group couldn't make Rdb more
    successful than Oracle if they could raise a bank loan to buy what
    they have written?
    
    	It *is* multi-platform, it would be non-DEC, and I think it
    outperforms Oracle on most platforms where it is implemented. Maybe
    Oracle is terrified that we might make it a spin-off company.

    How much money do you have?  Lets see, first Oracle has a commanding,
    almost insurmountable lead in its arena.  Second, they do marketing.
    They have sales people.  Rdb does fine engineering but good marketing
    and bad engineering beats good engineering and bad marketing on the
    bottom line every time.  Digital as a company has yet to understand
    what it takes to make a successful software product in todays market
    and, I fear, it never will.  And the reason a spinout couldn't beat
    Oracle is simple - they are just too far gone.
    
    There is also a problem in that Rdb is still almost entirely written
    in Bliss.  Until that is overcome either by translation or the creation
    of a universal Bliss compiler, it has platform coverage problems.
    
    Despite all this, if the rumors are true, I think that it is unfortunate 
    for everyone except the Rdb engineers, who are undoubtedly going to be
    treated much better at a software company.
    
    And on the suggestion that Digital buy Oracle - isn't Oracle's 
    capitalization *larger* than Digital's?  Maybe Oracle will buy Digital.
    Nah, why would a software company want to have anything to do with
    hardware.

    re: .131
>    There is also a problem in that Rdb is still almost entirely written
>    in Bliss.  Until that is overcome either by translation or the creation
>    of a universal Bliss compiler, it has platform coverage problems.
    
    	I am not sure what you mean by a "universal compiler". As far as I
    know, we currently have Bliss compilers for at least 5 different
    computer architectures, maybe more, and the compiler(s) was designed to
    be highly portable to other architectures - a Bliss compiler on a
    DECsystem-10 was cross-compiling RMS32 for VAX machines before anyone
    had got around to building a VAX machine. The only architecture I can
    think of that may be missing, and is *likely* to be important is PowerPC.
    
    

Rumors i am hearing are getting stronger and more definite that RDB and
possibly all of DBS have been sold (done deal).

Meanwhile we have apparently sold the newspaper and broadcast media segment
of our Basys subsidiary to Avid (according to Sunday papers).

More than ever, we seem to be betting the company on widespread acceptance
of Alpha AXP.  I'm wondering what our projected sales of Alpha-based systems
amount to for this year (given that Apple plans on shipping 1 million PowerPC
systems and Intel plans on 5 million 486+Pentium systems).  We either have to
find a profitable niche market with high expansion potential or quickly get
a 64 bit "killer app" out on one of our Alpha platforms.  It's hard to figure
just what we're planning to have be our added value.  The 64 bit thing is OK
for now, though there's a shortage of apps that take advantage of it.  But
how long do we have before the Intel-HP and PowerPC coalitions come out with
their 64 bit competitors to Alpha?
								- paul

re Note 3185.133 by ARCANA::CONNELLY:

> We either have to
> find a profitable niche market with high expansion potential or quickly get
> a 64 bit "killer app" out on one of our Alpha platforms.  
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        Doesn't that involve the dreaded "S" word -- software?

        Bob

re: .134

>        Doesn't that involve the dreaded "S" word -- software?

Yeah, funny about that, isn't it?

;^|

    Maybe what we need for a "killer app" is a good client/server
    relational database package... Err...
    
    
    Laurie.

    It also seems abit ironic that Digital is cutting loose virtually
    everything but it's hardware products and yet we keep hearing how the
    profit margins keep shrinking.

    Someone speculated that there may be major shakeup in the industry
    if this trend continues. Only the very strong and focused
    (hardware) companies will be able to survive. Perhaps that's our
    strategy. Just focus on hardware (and services) and be one of the
    few survivors. Much like the history of the automobile industry.
 
    

> We either have to
> find a profitable niche market with high expansion potential or quickly get
> a 64 bit "killer app" out on one of our Alpha platforms.  
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that should now read
    "or quickly get a partner to put a 64 bit "killer app" out on one
    of our platforms..."

    re: .137
    >Much like the history of the automobile industry.
    
    	Most of the automobile industry is in the business of providing
    complete turnkey solutions to user's transportation needs.. I admit
    that on my car the battery, tyres and light bulbs are outsourced, but
    nobody thinks of those manufacturers as "car makers". They have a solid
    income from manufacturers of cars, and from replacement parts with end
    users.
    
    10 years time, customer goes into shop :-
    "I'd like to buy an Oracle server".
    "Certainly sir, what speed would you like"?
    "x queries per second should be enough. Does it have "Intel Inside"
    	written on it"?   (this question wouldn't even be mentioned,
    	any more than you would ask about the make of engine oil when
    	buying a car).
    
    	Intel is currently spending a lot of money trying to pretend that
    their product is something the end user is interested in. We are trying
    to emulate their lack of higher level products (without copying their
    sales campaign) in the hope that we can be as successful.

>>         <<< Note 3185.121 by MSBCS::WIBECAN "Going on an Alphaquest" >>>
>>                        -< Small article in Boston Globe >-
>> 
>> There was a brief note in the Boston Globe today, referring to the WSJ article.
>> I don't have it in front of me, but it said that neither company would comment
>> on the rumor; it also said that a Digital spokesperson (named, but I don't
>> remember the name) said that the company was a couple of weeks away from making
>> a broad announcement about the future of Digital's software business.

For the record, the "brief note" I referred to in the above is also discussed
in note 3359.7.  The spokesperson was Mark Fredrickson.

						Brian

re: .138

I like my version better because it hints at being flexible as to the source.
Of course, if we don't WANT that level of flexibility at this point...

- paul

Digital Press Contact:	Chuck Malkiel
			508/493-4164


ORACLE ACQUIRES DIGITAL'S RDB, REPOSITORY AND DBA WORKCENTER BUSINESSES 

Oracle Retains Digital's Rdb Employees and Support Services Worldwide
Companies Expand Strategic Relationship

Redwood Shores, Calif., Sept. 1, 1994 -- Oracle Corp. and Digital Equipment
Corporation today announced the signing of agreements providing for the
acquisition by Oracle of the assets of Digital's Rdb database, CDD/Repository
and the DBA Workcenter suite of database administration tools and all
corresponding support businesses for $108 million in cash.  The acquisition will
be accounted for as a purchase transaction. 
   As part of the agreement, Oracle is making every effort to retain the
employees related to these businesses.  Employment and incentive offers have
been extended to approximately 250 Digital engineers, management and support
employees responsible for the development and maintenance of the Rdb database
and repository businesses.  To facilitate a smooth transition of the Rdb
development team, continue product delivery commitments, and provide continuity
for Rdb customers worldwide, Oracle announced that it will create the Oracle New
England Development center, the first such facility for Oracle in the U.S. based
outside California.  Oracle will also a Colorado Springs Rdb support center to
its worldwide customer support and services network. Employees in other
worldwide locations will be integrated with existing Oracle operations in those
countries.  These steps ensure that customers will continue to benefit
from substantially the same products, support and service that they receive
today. 
   Oracle's intention is to make significant investments in the Rdb technology
set.  Oracle will continue to enhance its capabilities and quality and will
extend the existing gateway technology for connectivity between Rdb and Oracle7
to ensure interoperability between the two database server products.  In
addition, Oracle will complete announced porting plans for Rdb to operating
systems such as DEC OSF/1 and Windows NT for Alpha AXP. Oracle will create an
Rdb Customer Advisory Council to ensure an open forum on Rdb future directions. 
   "We are extremely pleased to welcome the Rdb product line and its world-
class customer base into the Oracle family," said Raymond J. Lane, Oracle's
executive vice president and president of Worldwide Operations.  "As exhibited
by our commitment to the development and support centers and their employees, we
are ensuring a seamless and professional transition for customers worldwide. 
   "This agreement strengthens our partnership with Oracle and confirms our
business strategy to focus on our core competencies and to cooperate with our
partners. Even more importantly, it guarantees the continued development and
support for Rdb and a smooth transition for our customers," said Enrico
Pesatori, vice president and general manager of Digital's Computer Systems
Division.   "We are confident that our customers will be pleased with the level
of commitment Oracle brings to the database product set, and we look forward to
our future work together." 
   Digital will continue to be responsible for all existing contracts through
expiration or for fifteen months (whichever is shorter) while Oracle will act as
the service provider.  Thereafter, customers will be able to take direct
advantage of Oracle's service and support offerings.  Digital will continue to
offer consulting services for the Rdb product set, and will add consulting
support for Oracle7 products. 
   All agreements will be effective upon the close of the transaction, pending
government approvals. 
   Rdb third-party vendors and many existing Rdb resellers will have the
opportunity to join Oracle's Business Alliance Program, enabling them to take
advantage of a variety of programs and services designed to make them more
successful in creating complementary products and selling Oracle technology. 
   "As the vendor of PowerHouse, the leading 4GL development tool for Rdb
environments and also as a supplier of tools for Oracle7, we know what a
powerful combination these products provide to customers," said Ron Zambonini,
president, Cognos, Inc.  "Cognos has long-standing relationships with both
Digital and Oracle, and we are enthusiastic about the agreement." 
   "We think Oracle's acquisition of Rdb is very positive for third-party
developers such as IBI and for customers," said Gerald D. Cohen, president,
Information Builders, Inc.  "As a leading provider of tools for both the Oracle
and Rdb databases, we see a high degree of synergy in the technologies and the
emphasis of both these companies enterprise-wide applications." 

EXPANDED STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP
As part of the agreements, Oracle and Digital outlined an expanded strategic
relationship encompassing the availability of Oracle's major product lines on
Digital systems; the availability of the Oracle Media Server on Digital's video
server hardware; and reseller agreements.  In addition, Oracle and Digital
reaffirmed their commitment to continue the joint development and marketing
activities previously announced in July as part of the Enterprise Solutions
Program. 

Expanded Oracle Product Availability
To further integrate product offerings, Oracle will port Oracle7, Oracle
Cooperative Development Environment (CDE) and Oracle Cooperative Applications to
Digital's Windows NT for Alpha AXP platform.  These Oracle products already
support Digital's OpenVMS VAX , OpenVMS AXP, DEC OSF/1 AXP.  Oracle will also
make available its low-end Oracle Workgroup Server product on Digital's Windows
NT for Intel platform. 

Oracle Media Server
Oracle and Digital will collaborate to bring the Oracle Media Server to the DEC
OSF/1 AXP platform.  The companies will include each others products on a non-
exclusive basis in "information highway" business proposals. 
   The Oracle Media Server, introduced by Oracle in Feb., 1994 is a digital
"multimedia library" that stores, retrieves and manages all forms of
information: video, audio, images, text and tables.  It has been chosen for the
delivery of interactive services by BT (formerly British Telecom), Bell
Atlantic, Bell South, and US West.  It is also a part of the first deployment of
interactive multimedia services in Ipswich, Suffolk County, UK by BT. 

Reseller Agreement
Under the agreements,  Digital will resell and distribute Oracle software
products as part of Digital's hardware server sales efforts as well as its
Multivendor Customers Services offerings.  Digital's sales force will be
compensated to sell both Oracle7 and Rdb offerings in addition to Oracle CDE
development tools and Oracle Cooperative Applications.  Oracle will resell
Digital's transaction processing and data integration software products. 
   Oracle sales training and certification programs will be extended to the
Digital sales force.  As well the companies will work on joint marketing
activities including advertising and direct marketing to promote their
solutions. 

Digital Equipment Corporation is the world's leader in open client/server
solutions from personal computing to integrated worldwide information systems.
Digital's scalable Alpha AXP platforms, storage, networking, software and
services, together with industry- focused solutions from business partners, help
organizations compete and win in today's global marketplace. 

Oracle Corp., a $2 billion company with headquarters in Redwood Shores, Calif.,
is the world's leading supplier of information management software.  Oracle
develops and markets the Oracle7 family of software products for database
management; Cooperative Development Environment (CDE), a complete set of CASE
and application development tools for enterprise-wide, client,/server computing;
and Oracle Cooperative Applications, packaged client/server solutions for human
resources, accounting and manufacturing.  Oracle software runs on personal
digital assistants, PCs, workstations, minicomputers, mainframes and massively
parallel computers.  The company offers its products, along with related
consulting, education and support services, in more than 90 countries around the
world. 

   					###

Note to Editors:	The following are trademarks of Digital Equipment 
   			Corporation: Rdb, CDD/Repository, DEC, Digital, Alpha,
   			Alpha AXP, OpenVMS, VAX 
			
   			The following are trademarks of Oracle Corp.: Oracle, 
   			Oracle7, Cooperative Development Environment,
   			Cooperative Applications, Oracle Media Server 
			
   			Intel is a trademark of the Intel Corporation
			Windows NT is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation
			OSF/1 is a registered trademark of Open Software 
   			Foundation, Inc.
    

    This has got to rank right up there with the stupidest things Digital
    has done in its entire history.  I believe Oracle will wait just
    a short time and then kill off Rdb.  Many of our largest customers
    will consider that we have betrayed them one last time, and they
    won't stick around for it to happen again.
    
    Who's got the death wish in Maynard?
    
    I am truly disgusted.
    
    				Steve

>>         <<< Note 3185.113 by DBEMUN::CARPENTER "DEC Rdb Hired Gun" >>>
>>                            -< It is NOT official. >-
>>
>>Nothing is offical until I sing. (I'm the fat man)
>>
>>Larry

	uggg....I was hoping the other shoe wouldn't drop...so
	much for good intentions...............

	my current contract involves developing a medical imaging environment
	for Joslin Diabetes Center, a Havard Med. School affiliate
	and non-profit institution.....I was really hoping to be able
	to use the upcoming Rdb for DEC OSF/1 because a) Rdb has some
	really good technical elements (mulitmedia support, ODBC clients
	good server implementation, etc), b) it would have increased the
	Digital content of the solution and c) it would have been available
	under Harvard's CSLG agreement saving Joslin *boatloads* of money on
	an already fiscally crunched project.....

	this despite the fact that other aspects of the project pointed to
	Oracle V7 as being possibly easier to integrate, although Oracle
	wants arms, legs, and first-born male children in exchange for the
 	licenses....I will probably go with Oracle now anyway (and spend
	the rest of my life limb-less and child-less) because I am certainly
	NOT going to take the chance that Oracle *won't* simply kill off
	Rdb as soon as feasable..................

	how many new Rdb customers do these people really think they are
	gonna get??? this essentially means that the DEC OSF/1 and WNT
	products are still-born, not to mention that gaggle of new DB
	Integrator products we just announced.....how long do you think
	it will take for Oracle to come up with some sort of migration
	license for the existing Rdb customer base???? how stupid do 
	they think the customers really are??????????

	excuse me but I must stop now and go toss my cookies et. al.

	_kelley (ignore the toilet sounds in the background)

    RE: the last few notes...
    
    Why would you think that Oracle would buy Rdb to kill it off??? Did you
    actually read the press release?  Wy would Oracle pay $108M to kill off
    a product (set) that will make them much more than that within the next
    year alone?
    
    The press release states quite clearly that Rdb will continue in its
    current and future development, including the ports to non-VMS
    platforms. Oracle runs a successful software business - they know that
    they are buying a valuable asset (including all the people who develop,
    maintain, and support it) - they certainly don't plan to kill it.
    
    In order to attempt to counteract further negative comments, 
    I've included some comments made by one of the Rdb developers
    as to why this deal is good for Rdb (and its customers).
    
             <<< WILBRY::ADMIN_UTIL:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RDB_60.NOTE;1 >>>
     -< DEC Rdb - Digital's Strategic Relational Database - on Alpha AXP >-
================================================================================
Note 1058.43                UK Publication Rdb True?                    43 of 43
NOVA::SMITHI "it was a runby fruiting!"              33 lines   1-SEP-1994 22:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long live Rdb!  :-)

"Due to SEC regulations"... we had to keep our mouths shut.  It has been a
very frustrating few weeks...

It may seem strange that our arch rival is now our kin, yet the mutual respect
we have as engineering teams will be strengthened in the coming months to make
sure that the features the Rdb customer need, the support they love and the
future they want will continue.

The last few years as Digital's Relational Database product has been very
difficult, yet even with next to no marketing the business still remains
profitable being one of the top 5 Digital software products.  The new owner,
Oracle, also knowns that and will work hard to continue that and expand the
Rdb market place.  Long term planning will start in earnest very soon... 
However, there is no doubt that the Rdb team wants to work on and sell the
*best* relational database in the world...

Now please reassure your customers that:

	a) Rdb is not being killed off
	b) Rdb V6.1 is nearing <end of> field test
	c) Rdb V6.2 is in design and development
	d) All engineering efforts are concentrating on quality and
	user requirements
	e) Support will continue at the same high level
	f) The future is bright!

Thanks all for your support.  We hope to see you on the net!

cheers,

	Ian
    

I'll add my 2 cents, too.  I'm one of the support folks from the CSC in
Colorado Springs who is part of this deal.  I cannot begin to tell you
how excited I am and my co-workers, too!

Customers will get to have their cake (Rdb) and eat it too (the engineers
and the support people).  They'll still get to talk to me and I'll still
get to talk to them and to the same incredible group of engineers that I've
been working with for 10 years.

I look at this as one of the most incredible opportunities I've ever had.
And, I think it will be damn good for the customers!

The piece that was missing from all the rumors was that they were buying
the engineers and support staff, too.  Like Jay said, you don't spend
108 million dollars on something like this to kill it!

Liz

    But, what if...
    
    Oracle bought Rdb not as a product but for the customer base?
    
    Oracle bought Rdb to get rid of it as a competitor so it can charge
    outrageous prices as the next best option for the VLDB market and 
    for Digital customers?
    
    Oracle formed a strategic relationship with Digital as part of the
    deal and all but locked up the Digital DBMS market?
    
    And as a special bonus, Oracle gets on-going product and service
    revenue?
    
    Sounds like a good deal to me.
    
    From what I saw from the press release it isn't so clear what 
    Oracle's intentions are even publically stated - and given that
    it is Oracle after all, what they say publically has to be taken
    with a pound of rock salt.

    >>    Oracle bought Rdb not as a product but for the customer base?
    
    If that is all they wanted then why bother with hiring the engineering
    and support staff?  You don't invest that much in a MONEYMAKING product
    including the engineering and support staff to kill it.  Oracle will
    now have 2 world-class database engines and I for one am looking
    forward to working with a company that KNOWS HOW TO MARKET!!!
    
    Mike Austin
    Oracle-RDB Support

    Apollo Computer/Hewlett Packard is a good example of buying a
    moneymaking product, including the engineering and support staff,
    and then killing it (true, it took 6 or so years).  Jeep's
    Commanche pickup truck line was also probably profitable;
    but was quickly killed off by Chrysler in favor of their inhouse
    pickup line after they bought AMC.  That's not saying that
    Oracle won't maintain both database engines for a long time;
    just make sure to keep your resumes updated.  .02kb
    

RE: -.146
        ...not to mention that gaggle of new DBIntegrator products we 
        just announced....
    
    go ahead and mention the DB Integrator products, we didn't sell them.
    DB Integrator , Data Distributor and all our DBI Gateways are
    part of our core software business...Fully funded, Digital $$$.
    Hopefully now that the sale is over we can start to focus on the
    new strategy. As soon as it's published.
    
    BTW.. just to mention some of the data sources DB Integrator supports..
    
    sybase,  oracle, rdb, rms, dbms, dsm, db2 and V3.1 support
    
    ingres, informix, as400, progress, ...
    
    

Was DBMS (Codasyl database) included in this package?

								- paul

    re -1,
    
    Yes, DBMS is part of the deal.
    
    The only way this will work for both Oracle and Digital is that we
    keep/build trust and respect from/with our customers. No way will
    Oracle reps start selling many Rdb licences, likewise no way Digital
    reps will start selling tons of Oracle licences.
    
    With care, respect and meeting commitments (schedules, porting plans,
    etc) customers will be convinced over time, that this was a good deal
    for them. All ingredients to make that happen are part of the package.
    Now lets be positive, for Rdb, Digital, Oracle and ourselves.
    
    Henny (long term Rdb streetfighter)

    Oracle made a big effort to bring along the engineering staff and slow
    the trickle, nay close the floodgates to Microsoft, Sybase, etc.  We
    believe that Oracle wants to continue the product and technology.  It
    won't be easy but our goals are still to build the best database
    products for the customers.
    
    Oracle sales staff will be goaled (i.e., financially rewarded) on
    selling both Oracle and Rdb, as will Digital's.
    
    We are doing more than just going along for the ride.
    
    ed

re Note 3185.144 by QUARK::LIONEL:

>     I believe Oracle will wait just
>     a short time and then kill off Rdb.  

        If RDB is really as good as we have recently claimed, and if
        such goodness does translate into major revenue potential,
        why would Oracle do such a stupid thing?

        Bob

"... Redwood Shores, Calif.-based Pracle, the world's largest independent
database software company, said it plans to eventually integrate Digital's
database product into its own product."

						Trace

	The gut reaction that many people are having (that Oracle is just
	buying Rdb to kill it) is perfectly understandable, because that was
	the first reaction I (and other Rdb engineers) had upon being
	informed of the potential deal a few months ago.

	However, after being involved for some number of weeks, having
	talked to the Oracle people, having seen the employment agreements
	involved, and being as fully informed about the deal as non-VP level
	people will be, the vast majority of engineering, support, and
	consulting people involved with Rdb believe that this deal is in the
	best interest of our customers as well as the product business team.

	That's why over 95% of the engineering group has stayed on. That's
	why we have so many support people coming, and why consulting and
	technical sales people want to join us (even in excess of those who
	were included in the deal). That's why we're actually HIRING people
	in just about all aspects of our business.

	The fact is that Rdb is in much better hands with Oracle than it
	would have been under Digital's kindly (?) management. We will be
	allowed, nay encouraged, to succeed in the software business with
	the backing of management that has the same goals. That's something
	we certainly couldn't say before.

	Roy

    sooooo...
    you're excited about this as much because you are LEAVING digital, as
    about GOING TO Oracle?  is that what's "exciting"?
    
    t.

Hmm...guess the gut reaction still is at large.

OK, so Oracle will continue with Rdb for a while. OK so lots of
database engineers are really happy to sign with Oracle. OK so who
cares that the very same people used to badmouth Oracle not very long
ago. OK, so I am disapointed at DEC selling one of its cornerstone 
products. But all of this is really quite uninteresting when thinking about
the the real issue: THE CUSTOMER!

What will the customer do? Run to Oracle to buy Rdb? Not likely, bud! He will
probably start by throwing out DEC HW and then go off to Sybase or Informix.
HE will be very p*ssed off because the reason he once did go with Rdb was
that he did not want to buy Oracle or even have anything to do with them.

No DEC is forcing this poor bugger to go back to the vendor he once did
reject (for whatever reasons, price, performance, foul breath of salesperson...)
He feels let down and wants to kick some butt! So he buys somthing else.

Now this is a worst-case scenario but I really think this whole move will be
very bad for DEC, both HW and SW sales-wise. We are a company on the way down and
who wants do jump on board a sinking ship?

/Tom  

	ok....so I've had a night to sleep on it (not much sleep, but).....

	first, I have to say that a good part of my reaction came from
	the used-car-saleman-like tactics that were employed since
	these "rumors" were started ("remember, these are just rumors")
	in order not to scare off potential business....now I find myself in
	a very difficult situation having lost substantial time in
	commitment to a product that does not yet exist! (DEC OSF/1 version
	of Rdb)....

	second, remember that in my situtation part of what made Rdb
	attractive in the first place was its inclusion (and insistance
	by Rdb product management that the DEC OSF/1 version would also
	be) in the CSLG program....this would have allowed my fiscally
	strapped customer to utilize an admittedly world class database
	product in their first of its kind environment.....any comments
	from those in Oracle-Rdb land on the fate of Rdb in CSLG??
	(I'm not gonna hold my breath).........

	third, Rdb product management had discussed with me the inclusion
	of the new DEC OSF/1 version in some future release of the layered
	product CDs....since I've never seen Oracle on these CDs, I have
	no reason to believe that this will be true now....that means
	an additional outlay for media-and-doc that also would not have
	been true otherwise....

	add this last point to my second point above and suddenly Rdb is not 
	such an attractive purchase afterall....and since Oracle is THE
	MARKET LEADER in the healthcare sector, why not just do the "right
	thing"?

	but last and most important, it defies basic logic and instinct
	to think that Oracle as a company would have any interest in
	indefinately promoting Rdb, or, more importantly, that new customers
	would have any interest in purchasing Rdb over Oracle from Oracle...
	and Digital reps are now totally free to sell whichever db the
	customer asks for....how many will continue to press Rdb against
	the odds (remember: it was always a struggle in all but a few
	particular circumstances).............................

	I am not at all impressed by the purchase price arguement;
	Oracle's current market capitalization exceeds Digital's by almost
	$12B (that's Billion!)....they could absorb $100M in the blink
	of an eye.......................

	in closing, it would take a he!! of a lot more than some
	triple-speak ladden press release to regain my trust at this
	point.....lets hope for those depending on Rdb that I don't
	speak for everyone.............

	_kelley Gardner
	Senior Technology Consultant
	Boston PSC

        Well, I lost my link to the RDB_60 conference.  The more I read, it
    sounds like somebody in management and engineering neglected to ask the
    field again.  I'm in consulting, and for years we have been preaching
    why Rdb is head and shoulders above Oracle.  Of course, a major
    attraction was price.  A major detriment was the *constant* waffling
    of management.  When BP came in and made it clear we're a h/w company,
    then made a strategic alliance with Oracle (Oracle has 60% of the
    market, you want to sell Alphas?  you better have Oracle available), it
    was only a matter of time.

    Oracle investments - when you own 60% of the market, 108 million is a
    drop in the bucket.  There is *NO* way that I can recommend Rdb over
    Oracle now from an engineering perspective. The risk is too high.

    chg

    My 2 cents ....
    
    I don't think this decision is bad for the following reasons:

	o  We are not now, have never been a leader in any
	   software business (leader = market share leader)
	   and the database area is no exception (less than 12% share
	   and not in the top 3 or 4)
	o  Companies who don't lead a market can not compete
	   effectively OVER TIME; the game gets competitive and
	   the weak are weeded out as the market power consolidates
	o  Companies who don't lead a market see profits go
	   lower and lower over time as competition increases
	   or "new rules" increase costs of being in the game.
	o  Companies who don't lead must by nature follow. If
	   the leaders of the market set a trend, lower price,
	   add functionality, you need to follow. Non-leaders
	   must eventually withdraw or pick a small market niche 
	   to survive. Growth is no longer a goal. Survival is.
	o  Digital CAN NOT afford to be in businesses where
	   we can't lead. It is good that RDB brought in
	   over $100 million a year, but Digital has to take
	   a hard look at what it considers core. It looks like
	   a decision has been made regarding our core. I read from
	   this that we have decided we are not a database
	   company. We make the hardware that the world's best
	   databases run on. You can argue that you don't like 
	   the decision, but I'm glad we made one!
	o  We just put $108 million in the bank, which
	   certainly can't hurt
	o  Digital WILL STILL SELL Rdb as part of the agreement.
	   We can sell a customer Rdb if we think it is the right 
	   thing, or we can sell them Oracle if that is what
	   they "always use" ... no more channel conflict in
	   the field ... no more pressure to "sell Rdb because it
	   is 'our product'" (how nice! we can actually focus on 
	   what is best for the customer and take the path of least
	   resitance!) 
	o  There are NO "incentives" being given to convert Rdb licenses 
	   over to Oracle ... to the contrary, Oracle has established
	   Rdb sales targets. 
	o  It would appear that there is very high interest in retaining
	   Rdb engineers ... must be nice to hear that somebody
    	   wants to retain you these days! 
	o  It would appear that there is a very high interest in 
	   retaining the support (CSC, etc.) ... also nice!
	o  There is a transition plan for customer support ... Exisiting 
	   customers will continue to be supported by 
	   Digital until their contracts expire or for 15 months
	   (whichever is shorter). Then support goes to Oracle. This
	   gives customers a chance to get used to the idea and for
	   things to sort themselves out a little.
        o  A lot of the negative's I've read seem to berate management
    	   for "waffling" on Rdb. You're right. They did. Waffling
           stinks! But be happy. The waffling is now over.
        o  Other negatives indicate concern over delivery of
           things Digital told our people we would do. I think
    	   it's a little early to speculate on what will and won't
    	   happen.

    Seems like we are, to some extent mourning a loss; people are angry ;
    that's OK. It shows how much people care about the product and how
    attached they are to it (it IS a great product!)

    Personally I wouldn't mourn the loss. I would celebrate Rdb's rebirth.
    I don't think the product had a chance as a part of Digital and I think
    the people who love the product and believe in it have great  cause to
    celebrate. 

    For Digital, this allows the rest of the company to put more wood
    behind other arrows. This is good too.

    /se


    
    

	re: .163

	seems to me your points about why we should've gotten out
	of the db game make a convincing arguement for getting out of
	the Alpha game....

	think about it...

	_k

    If I was an RDB customer, I'd immediately begin looking for a migration
    path off of RDB.  I would not believe a word Oracle says about RDB.
    
    I also would wonder if I could believe ANYTHING Digital said about ANY
    of their products.  I suspect we have just lost ANY remaining loyalty
    from those customers in our installed base who use RDB.
    
    I sincerely hope I am wrong.
    
    Bob

	Let me address two points here:

	1) What about the customers?
	2) Once again, the field is the last to know.

	1) What about customers? What should they do?

	In my opinion, they should be happy that Rdb is now under the
	auspices of a company that gives a darn about the future of its
	software products. The fact is that the future of Rdb with Digital
	was nowhere -- had Digital made a public statement that it would
	keep Rdb, I believe that half the group would have left within 2
	months. The product would have had to go into maintenance mode, at
	best.

	As it is, we are moving full steam ahead with development, including
	our announced plans for OSF/1 and Alpha/NT. In the long run the
	plans are to create a "superset" product containing the best of both
	worlds -- the technical leadership areas of Rdb and the
	multi-platform portability of Oracle.

	Will there be changes to pricing? Almost certainly, but I can't say
	what they are. Will there be changes in business practices? Again,
	almost certainly, and probably for the better if Digital's track
	record is the basis for comparison.

	I think that many people are comparing the deal with Oracle to some
	idealized pipe dream in which Digital all of a sudden became
	committed to software as a business, figured out how to manage
	software successfully, allowed us to port off Digital platforms, and
	became effective at marketing, advertising, and sales. Well, that
	was never going to happen, period. The alternative to a sale was a
	slow, lingering death, more years of uncertainty, and the same
	problems we currently have. 

	But the Oracle deal isn't just great news in comparison to that,
	it's good news on its own. All of our dealings with Oracle have
	convinced us that they are sincerely committed not only to the Rdb
	engineering group, but to making Rdb a profitable business. This
	means keeping the customers happy, sustaining and enhancing the
	product for the forseeable future, and providing top notch service
	and consulting. 

	*THAT'S* what customers should be hearing.

	2) Why wasn't the field told? Why are they always the last to know.

	This one is easier. There are all sorts of regulations about
	dissemination of information when deals like this are not final.
	Everybody involved had to sign non-disclosure agreements, and any
	use of the information would have been cause for dismissal, and
	could have run afoul of insider trading laws.

	We in Rdb-land did our best to identify the people in the field that
	we thought should be included in the "Rdb product business," but our
	best efforts were sometimes blocked by people and/or matters beyond
	our control. So, we weren't able to bring as many people along as we
	would have liked. That's why we have people already sending us their
	resumes; after all, we've been able to hire for weeks now.

	I realize that it seems like yet another "treat them like mushrooms"
	case. But there were legal implications to everything in the deal,
	and notifying people who were not included in the deal was just not
	possible. It put some people (especially those who deal with
	customers directly) into some pretty awkward positions, but that was
	unfortunately unavoidable.

	Roy

        Roy,

    re: What should customers do?

    You have an excellent point about Rdb's future with Digital.  You imply
    that perhaps the only products that Digital sells which have a future
    are developed by other companies.  Sounds like to me I need to
    emphasize 3rd party.

    If I was a customer, and it is very likely that I'll be one in the
    future, I sure as heck would not believe what a Digital rep or employee
    or consultant told me.  I'd want it in writing, with penalties. 
    Knowing that you had restrictions on you makes it somewhat
    understandable.  But, this BS has been going on for years - the field
    being the last to know.  IMHO, the only reason I'm still a Digital
    employee is BP couldn't get the price he had in mind for DC.

    re: awkward positions

    Come work in the field for a few years.  You'll get tired of awkward
    positions.  What am I supposed to tell a customer who wants a Digital
    product and yet I *know* it is nearly certain to die?  I have no
    commitment from management, starting with BP on down.  I'm sure BP is
    committed to something, but we don't know what it is.  We find out from
    trade rags.  Care to try to sell yourself at +100 per hour with support
    like that?

    Truly, I think it is best for Digital, but this company is being
    dismantled - I'd like to know what the SLT has in mind so I can make my
    plans.

    Having seen (albeit on a smaller scale) several instances of such
    software acquistions - first hand, in one case - my guess would
    be that Oracle will try to get to the point where they have *one*
    releational db offering as soon as is practically feasible.  Presumably
    some of the areas in which rdb is technically superior to Oracle7 or
    whatever will be incorporated into the unified Oracle-x, and certainly
    they will cherry-pick the best from the rdb engineering staff.  If
    Oracle's business will support it, almost everyone will have jobs at
    the hands of our esteemed partner indefinitely:  indeed, if Rdb is
    truly as profitable as been mentioned in this string and the current
    customer base doesn't freak and bolt to an Oracle competitor, I'd
    guess that most of our soon-to-be-departed brethren have at least a
    couple of fun years in front of them.  However, I find myself in full
    agreement with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Lionel a few replies
    back.

    With something as important as the sale of a major product to another
    company why do those of us in the field have to find out by reading the
    press release?  Wouldn't it be nice if we got the information first so
    that we could inform customers first rather than having to respond to
    their questions about the press release without having some time to
    prepare.
    
    I'm glad everyone is so pleased by this announcement, but personally
    I'm stunned.  Yes, I heard all of the rumors, but there is nothing
    like an official internal announcement prior to the press release to
    make sure we are all prepared to react properly to the situation.
    
    Kathleen Loerich

    re .169
    
    Exactly!  Given the effort we've put in over the past few years
    convincing consulting clients that Rdb was one of Digital's KEY
    STRATEGIC OFFERINGS, it would have been nice to get a little advance
    notice along with a set of new lies to tell the customer.
    
    \dave (disgusted former Rdb consultant)

>           <<< Note 3185.170 by WHOS01::BOWERS "Dave Bowers @WHO" >>>
>    Exactly!  Given the effort we've put in over the past few years
>    convincing consulting clients that Rdb was one of Digital's KEY
>    STRATEGIC OFFERINGS, it would have been nice to get a little advance
>    notice along with a set of new lies to tell the customer.

	All I can say is that I sympathize and agree wholeheartedly with
	you. I know that it doesn't help much, but it took the utmost
	restraint (not to mention the signed non disclosure agreements) for
	everybody in engineering to watch the rumors float by with only a
	"no comment" from on high to placate our customers.

	I guess it's the way of things that this sort of deal leaves bruises
	in its wake. There will undoubtedly be customers who are more than a
	little miffed because of what they were or were not told, just as
	there will be consultants, sales support, sales reps, and service
	people who put themselves on the line to support Rdb as a strategic
	Digital product, only to feel betrayed when the product business is
	sold.

	But I fully believe that both the letter and intent of the phrase
	"Digital is committed to the continued support of Rdb" will be
	fulfilled, and that Rdb will have a long and sustained development
	life over the next few years (and beyond).

	Roy

    THis is exactly what everyone that is fed up with the current
    set of ethics is all about!
    
    
    Why not use THIS as a case for the ethics police and DEMAND an 
    acknowledgement and answer from Mr Bob!
    
    chet

in re .147:
    
|    Why would you think that Oracle would buy Rdb to kill it off??? Did you
|    actually read the press release?  Wy would Oracle pay $108M to kill off
|    a product (set) that will make them much more than that within the next
|    year alone?
    
    Not that I have a particular oppinion in the matter but it is not
    inconcievable that with Rdb ''out of the way'' Oracle can recover
    the $108M pretty quickly. Milk off the good technologies and incorporate
    them into the base product and put the rest into cash-cow mode. One
    company, one product ..

    But, in reality, would that be a bad thing? Let us assume that our
    installed base gets a smoth transition to Oracle and that the
    engineers that transfer with the product end up in new and exciting
    positions .. what is the damage? Oracle are surely going show some
    guilt feelings for the next few years and ensure that Oracle's stuff
    will be available on DEC platforms in a timely fashion.

    We also need to put a proper perspective on "kill". I doubt that Oracle
    would be stupid enough to kill for the sake of killing. But, once they
    have worked with it for a while they may feel the need to remove the
    same type of duplication that we are doing at Digital, right now.

    This is not ment to be a negative comment, but provides one answer to
    the question you asked.

    >Per

in re .150:

|    >>    Oracle bought Rdb not as a product but for the customer base?
|    
|    If that is all they wanted then why bother with hiring the engineering
|    and support staff?

	If they do decide to consolidate then those engineers will ensure
	that Oracle can bridge the transition from Rdb to Oracle in a
	satisfactory manner. The engineers liberated during the phase-out,
	that we can assume are excellent, will be a nice addition to other
	Oracle core projects.

>Per

Well you tell me what is 'ethical'

1) Tell all of Digital before press releases and be accused of violating US 
	Securities laws
					or

2) Keeping all of Digital in the dark until the press releases and not be 
	accused of violating US Securities laws

Seems to me they were damned if they did and damned if they don't!

    My former employer went through a rather tumultuous period back in the
    late 70's when IRS, SEC et al. were coming down rather hard on
    "gratuities" to foreign officials.
    
    The day the news broke that the CEO was resigning, EVERY employee
    found a personal letter on his desk explaining what was going on.
    
    That, to my mind, is the ethical way of doing it.  And, in these days
    of universal e-mail,not that difficult to accomplish.
    
    \dave

	re: why nothing was said

	I know full well the conditions the SEC places on discussing
	such matters ...Oracle probably insisted on even more so...I (and it
	sounds like others) would have appreciated "I'm sorry but we
	cannot comment on this topic at this time."....these simple but
	truthful words would have let all know that something was afoot
	and to stay tuned for further developments...however, if you
	look back, this is exactly NOT what was said...instead, we get
	the now infamous "Remember, these are only rumors."....in
	retrospect, this statement was a BOLD FACED LIE plain and
	simple....I will leave the reasons for such as an excersize
	for the reader....

	my only solice is that the spin doctors responsible for this
	travisty will probably some of the first to find themselves
	redundant...

	bitter words from a bitter person
	_kelley

     <<< Note 3185.177 by KLUSTR::GARDNER "The secret word is Mudshark." >>>
                              -< do unto others >-

>>	the now infamous "Remember, these are only rumors."....in
>>	retrospect, this statement was a BOLD FACED LIE plain and

No, it was not a BOLD FACED LIE.  Until documents were signed it
was rumor.

>>	bitter words from a bitter person

Too bad for you.

This may have been mentioned in the press releases, or stated somewhere, but
if so I missed it. Now that RDB is no longer a Digital product, how does
this effect internal tools (or I guess external for that matter) that use
RDB as their database?

Now the RDB is no longer a Digital product, if we use RDB as our database,
and we want the next version, will we have to pay a roalty of some sort,
or did Digital make some kind of deal with Oracle so that we'd be able to
use it internally for free?

	James.

    From where I sit, which is pretty darned close to the goings-on but not
    directly affected by them . . .
    
    This is the kind of hard decision we've been complaining about BP not
    making.  Now he's finally made one, and we're complaining about what he
    decided.  Figures, I guess.
    
    The arguments about whether Oracle is going to "kill" Rdb assume, of
    course, that Digital was planning to keep Rdb around rather than
    slowly, or perhaps quickly, killing it themselves.  
    
    Digital has not shown much ability to develop, market, maintain, and
    sell software products.  Digital has not got much money to invest in
    developing, marketing, maintaining, and selling software products, no
    matter how much it might want to.  Don't forget this is a company in
    trouble, a company trying to cut down to what it does well.  That means
    that some products, no matter how good they are, no matter how well
    they sell, and no matter how successful they might be in the future,
    are going to have to go.  This is sad both for the products and for
    Digital, but it's unavoidable.  
    
    It looks to me like Rdb's future at Digital would have been a slow
    death by attrition and budgetary starvation.  I certainly don't see any
    reason to believe we would have been able to market it any better than
    we had in the past.  
    
    --bonnie

    .178 sounds like management material!   What a nit you are picking.
    
    What would the reaction have been if the words were "RDB is in the
    negotiation phase of being sold and the signing were to be announced
    as it happens"? 
    
    I guess what I'm hearing is that people in the field are sick and tired
    of being made to look like fools in the eyes of the customers that they
    have to work with on  a day to day basis, and a little cooperation from
    the folks ithe puzzle palace would do them a whold lot of good!
    
    I guess that 'rumor' to the insiders means that only THEY can know
    for sure.......it's sad, despicable, and downright unethical.  But then
    what did you all expect!  We'll never be a team again till this crap
    stops.
    
    p/t

Wow, Rdb sold to, of all companies, the Big O.  After having spent 4 years
migrating customers from Oracle to Rdb, I am in shock and feel for Rdb
customers as well as unhappy O customers.

I expect O to:

 o Milk the products they purchased - get as much revenue as possible, also
   charge more for Rdb - it currently makes O discount its product offerings.

 o Develop the purchased products and also put the technology O purchased into 
   O products.  The value of a Rdb on other platforms is nil compared to
   O products.

 o Phase out Rdb (within 3 years) as the installed base shrinks (other vendors 
   will ease the migration pain), due to customers getting nervous about the 
   O monopoly and what it means to their business (remember O in 1989-1991 ?)

 o When Alpha technology is not competitive, O will push sales of
   whoever has the hottest HW that O runs on.  Remember Sequent ?  
   Digital lost lots of accounts because O offered a Sequent hw solution.

This deal has me suspicious.  At least O is financially strong right now 
and not acting like a wounded animal.  

Selling Rdb also sends a strong message to Digital software engineers.

    Re: .182
    
    >I guess what I'm hearing is that people in the field are sick and tired
    >of being made to look like fools in the eyes of the customers that they
    >have to work with on  a day to day basis, and a little cooperation from
    >the folks ithe puzzle palace would do them a whold lot of good!
    
    Fine.  So all the management types go out to the field people and say, 
    "Here, sign this non-disclosure agreement.  Now, here's what's going
    on."  What good does it do you?  You still can't discuss the pending
    sale with your customers without violating both the non-disclosure
    agreement and SEC regulations (which is why we had to sign the
    non-disclosure agreements).  Rumors abound, but any official statement
    about the deal constitutes insider information.

    As far as Rdb's price goes -- my understanding is that Rdb is operating
    as a separate business unit.  Rdb management is responsible for coming
    up with the business plan.  It would be _extremely_ stupid of the
    various parties involved to jack up the price.  Pissing off customers
    is not good business.  From everything I've seen, all parties are
    putting a lot of effort into keeping the customer base content.
    
    Oracle gets most of its revenue from Digital platforms already, and has
    signed an alliance with Digital.  They want to keep Digital happy, too.

    From SPD #25.44 for Datatrieve:
    
     SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
    
     For Alpha AXP Systems:
    
     For Systems Using Terminals:
    
     o  OpenVMS AXP Operating System
    
     o  CDD/Repository for OpenVMS AXP <-----------
    
    
    Same requirements for VAX platform......so what are we telling
    Datatrieve customers?
    
    Karen
    
       

re .182    
>    What would the reaction have been if the words were "RDB is in the
>    negotiation phase of being sold and the signing were to be announced
>    as it happens"? 
    
My guess is that the SEC would have slapped a pretty hefty fine on Digital. 
With the SEC these days the only 'safe' thing a company can say to ANYONE 
is "No Comment".

    re: .185 (Datatrieve)
    
    It's the same for any products that require components from other
    vendors. Some of the products we sell require MS-DOS underneath them,
    although we don't build the software.
    
    michael

    re: lies, more lies, and . . . . .
    
    I have personally been working on this deal for over four months as
    part of the corporate communications team.  I have not met one liar in
    the bunch.  What I have met were a number of people who were torn
    between informing the field ahead of time and holding to the SEC
    regulations.  Many of us (I included) made strong cases to inform the
    field ahead of time.  We wanted a waiting period between the signing
    and the announcement so the field could prepare to meet with their
    customers.  Under other circumstances, we would have gotten it.  The
    problem here was that the $108M USD transaction was "material" to
    Oracle, that is, likely to affect the value of its stock.  Any person
    who had this information prior to announcement could have taken
    advantage of it and gained unfair advantage in the stock market.  As
    a result, Digital and individuals could have been fined.  In order to
    prevent this from happening, the lawyers severely restricted the number
    of people who could be informed prior to the actual announcement.
    
    As for the "its only rumors" and "no comment" statements, this was an
    absolute necessity.  Anything beyond this would constitute
    prenotification, and would cross over the legal line.  What many of us
    DID say was that the strategy of record in the IR would be the long
    term strategy of record.  The negotiations were based upon this
    strategy.
    
    So . . . no liars, only some very well intentioned people who were
    constrained by the rules.  I consider that ethical behavior.
    
    Mike

    
    Cleary Rdb need to be on non-DEC UNIX platforms years ago to be 
    a long term success.  Digital obviously wasn't committed to the 
    database market - we were committed to the VAX, and then the VMS
    markets.
    
    We could have put Rdb on Sequent and not lost those accounts, if we
    considered S/W accounts meaningful.....we don't.
    
    Oracle Mktg will what can be done with Rdb faster than Digital
    ever could.....sink OR swim.

    $108 million for a product that gave Digital a relational 
    Database engine on it's lead production quality platform(s).
    
    It's a crime... It's a sin... and it hastens the death of 
    OpenVMS.
    
    OpenVMS had RdB as a very Low Cost Database.  Integrated, 
    built in, and supported by Digital.  Now in the age of 
    Microsoft, WNT, and $400.00-$2000.00 database engine products
    we throw our future in with a Marketing Company that happens 
    to have an extreamely high margin, high price Database.
    
    I don't understand it.  We had the potential with RdB to create
    an engine that ran on all of our platforms and we blew it.
    
    Now when people/companies evaluate database engines and software
    they'll be comparing the costs against SQL Access and these 
    low cost alternatives.
    
    Lack of Features?  Buy another PC and tailor and dedicate the DB engine 
    to what you want to do exactly. 
    
    Oracle will go through some hard times in this market (why haven't they
    finished and delivered the port to NT?  Maybe they are protecting their 
    expensive installed base?)  
    
    The old Joke goes that Oracle runs best on a 35mm projector, now 
    we can say AXP makes it run just as good as a 35mm projector. But 
    the paradym is less than $2000 for Databases in the near future -- 
    and we gave away the only Database we had that we might have 
    charged $2k for...
    
    Believe what you will, RdB will be given a Micky Finn by Oracle then 
    quietly killed.  RdB technology will be assimilated by the Borg eh OrG, 
    eh Oracle and resistance is futile.
    
    John W.
    

re: .186

I thought the requirement for CDD in most products was a totally bogus excuse
to sell more CDD licenses.  Someone early on made the decision that CDD was
going to be the basis of any and all database/data access software that we did.
(In other words, the requirement is POLITICAL.)

This latest development can now probably be seen as inevitable once KO was
canned and David Stone left.  The BOD had apparently decided at that point that
we should get back to our roots as a hardware company and stop diddling around
with software.

What is worth questioning at this point is what need there is for Digital
Equipment Corporation to exist.  The CSD could probably easily spin off as
a separate company, either retaining some stake in Digital Semiconductor or
just becoming a customer of it (with Digital Semiconductor being another spin-
off).  Same with the Components Division and MCS.  I don't see any core vision
of what Digital is that would explain why these disparate parts need to stay
together as an incorporated entity.  If anything, they seem to be carrying the
lead weight of all the administrative overhead and the soured image of the
corporation in its entirety.  So, who knows, maybe the plan is really to
dismantle Digital Equipment Corporation over the next year.  It may make sense.

								- paul

    	The thing that worries me about this is that we are at best
    completely changing our market.
    
    	Admittedly DEC didn't start of by selling to people who used
    computers. We started off by selling to computer manufacturers, but
    from the PDP-1 we were selling to people who used computers.
    
    	The first DEC computer I used, we didn't bother to buy any device
    driver software from DEC since they didn't have any for the devices we
    had.
    	The next DEC computer had not only device drivers supplied free,
    but even a file system that worked fine as long as the computer only
    had one file open for write at a time.
    	After that we had RMS across 3 computer architectures and computer
    users started to expect that a computer would provide this sort of
    thing to help them access their data.
    	Now, they expect a database server talking standard protocols to
    access their data, and client interfaces that understand SQL.
    
    	By getting rid of Rdb we have just got out of the business of
    selling computers to (a large number of) users. Our customers now in
    that area are companies that can sell database servers to end users.
    This is the same trend as in the PC market. We will no longer be
    selling computers to people who use them, rather to people who sell
    them.
    
    	The decisions about CDD, and the fact that at one time the Rdb
    run-time system was bundled with VMS were just a reflection of the idea
    that we sold to people who *used* computers. Our competitors were
    companies like Oracle and Arthur Andersen. By getting rid of Rdb we are
    acknowledging that these are no longer our customer base. We should be
    selling to companies like Arthur Andersen instead of competing with
    them. It seems we already have something like that sort of relation
    with Oracle.

    $108 million!!!     That's it?    What's that cover,
    Digital's operating loss for a good quarter?   


    However, it has been quite entertaining to read the replies
    in this string by the typical know-it-all notes pundits about
    how the rumor of a sale to oracle is false...

    
    re: .192
    
    DATATRIEVE, BASIC, and COBOL all make very thorough use of CDD -
    especially DATATRIEVE, which is more-or-less the "EDT" of MIS shops.
    
    The requirement is very far from bogus...
    
    /regards

    re .-1
    Well the fat man (i.e Larry) has been singing but not to this audience.
    He has probably been too busy to follow this. He (many other members of
    the Rdb engineering group) have been on the phone to account
    teams/customers across the world reassuring them that the world has not
    come to an end.
    By the way he did know at the time of his note what was going on but as
    with us all was bound to silence due to non-disclosure. We were also
    trying to dampen down unhelpful speculation which did nothing except to
    unsettle customers and waste time. 
    /phil

    I truly hope that Oracle is as good for the people moving there, as
    Oracle says it will be.  Those of us in the field who have seen Oracle
    operate, have a justified fear that things may not be as they seem for
    y'all.  I can't say any more in a notesfile.
    
    Bob

    Bob,
    
      And things are better at Digital?
    
    chg

    re: .199
    
   >   And things are better at Digital?
    
    I'm just saying that people would do well to be dang sure of what they
    are getting themselves into, especially if it requires some sort of
    comitment on their part.
    
    Bob
    

    Bob,
    
      Good advice even in good times.
    
    chg

Alright, I'm singing!

I'm on my way to the airport to catch another plane to vist 5 more customers
over this week on this subject so I'll make this brief. I can't address every
point but I'll let you know what I know.

We could not say anything before the fact, a point which pained us to no end
and caused me to rely on some strong friendships to hang in there until I
could. The leaks by someone high up enough to know the price (I didn't until
the last week) which gave the Wall Street Journal their article hurt us more
than you can imagine.

No-one should be embarassed by the fact that they put their reputation on the
line to their customers, you did the right thing. Go back and tell them either
you didn't know and were not told because of the rules on this type of thing or
tell them you did know and couldn't say anything because of the rules etc.
There is no reason why your reputation should suffer.

Are you worried about facing a customer whom you been telling/selling/migrating
to Rdb away from ORACLE? You shouldn't be. WE WON! ORACLE recognizes us as the
technology leader and the support leader and that is what they bought. The
product, the people, the technology, the whole ball of wax. Everything you've
told your customers is true and now ORACLE is saying that as well.

Will ORACLE milk the product, kill it off and migrate our customers to ORACLE?
No. The terms and conditions clearly state that ORACLE will continue to
develop and enhance Rdb for a minimum of 2-3 years and will continue to
maintain and support Rdb for a MINIMUM of 7 years. If they plan on killing it
off they wouldn't wait 7 years! Will there be 'an Rdb' in 7 years? Probably not
but if not there will be an ORACLE that is a seamless and painless (if we have
anything to do with it and we do) upgrade from Rdb V7.n to ORACLE V1n.n.

Am I talking through my ear? No. I have verified all of this with the Vice
President of European Support (who is extremely positive about the whole thing
and BTW when was the last time you had a DEC VP call you to ask your opinion
about anything?) and from standing in front of the largest private bank in
Switzerland. They feel pretty good about the message I delivered about the deal
and confirmed that ORACLE feels the same way. They admitted that ORACLE had
already called them to ally their fears and to tell that their future with Rdb
is fine and to keep on going with it. Yes, they do want to feel better about
Digital's software strategy as a whole now but are willing to work with us if
we work with them. This is no time to sit around and bitch but a time (whether
you're going with Rdb to ORACLE or remaining a valuable Digital resource) to
get out an work with our customers to keep them with Digital and looking
forward. Life's a bitch and things change but the world does not come to and
end that easily :^)

Well, I've sung. I won't be able to read this notesfile again until next week
as I am going to be onsite at different customers the rest of this week.

Hang in there everybody.

Larry

    And to add one other "fat man singing" iteration to the fray...  :-)
    
    I've been the Rdb product manager for a couple of years now.  After
    this change from Digital to Oracle takes effect, I will REMAIN on
    the Digital side to take part in the management of the business of
    the Rdb family of products.  What does this mean?  It should mean
    that the Digital customer base of all effected products continues
    pretty much in a "business as usual" mentality.   Digital will continue
    to sell this product, offer it within packages/CD's, and provide
    consulting to the whole Oracle product set.  Only change to a customer?
    Down the road they'll probably buy Rdb support directly from Oracle,
    but their update licenses, etc, are still thru Digital.  What will
    the prices for licenses and support be to Digital-based Rdb
    customers?  Too early to tell - that's what the next couple of months
    will be working on.  But given that I'll be representing the Digital
    customer base with the Oracle team, my goal is to make the impact to
    the existing (and future) Digital customer base be as small as
    possible.  Personally, I believe that too large of a $$ change will
    be disasterous to both companies down the road - so a slow, intelligent
    pricing model will need to be developed.
    
    I see this move from Digital to Oracle as a big boost to the future
    life of Rdb, both from a customer perspective as well as a business
    perspective for BOTH Digital and Oracle.  More on the specifics will
    become clearer in the coming months - but I believe this agreement is
    a positive thing - and this comes from an employee remaining at
    Digital!
    
    Regards,
    Andy Schneider
    Digital Rdb Product Manager

    Hmmm. I've read all this, and I'm afraid to say that notes .191 and
    .193 say it for me. 
    
    Incidentally, I've worked with both Rdb and Oracle as a developer,
    designer and DBA, and Rdb, on VMS at least, is streets ahead of Oracle.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

Why would a SUCCESSFULLY Company like Oracle, with a DEDICATE, FOCUSED
Sales Force want to confuse them by having the sell two competing
products?

This has been a major complaint against DEC for years.  DEC sales reps
are so confused because we have too many products that compete amongst
each other.  How do you differentiate them - NOT very well. We've done
this for years with hardware.

Do we really expect Oracle to do the same thing?  The answer is NO!
would you?  I am not a DB expert but I have asked around both inside 
and outside of DEC for thoughts and this notesfile verify what people
are saying.  RDB has technologies that Oracle wants/needs.  Therefore,
they will extract these technologies and incorporate them into their
product and eventually do away with RDB.  What time frame is the question.
I believe it will be sooner than you imagine.

Only DEC sells products that are ALMOST exactly alike and can't 
explain what the significant differences are.  An example is the POLYCENTER
solutions product.  There's DEC FullSail with a Performance Monitoring
component,  this allows monitoring system performance.  And then there's
POLYCENTER Performance Solutions for UNIX.  Why not just combine these two
products.  

    Oracle7 and Rdb are sufficiently different that a properly trained
    salesperson should be able to figure out which one is best for a
    particular customer situation.
    
    Oracle salespeople live on commissions.  Not the 20% of the old salary
    like DEC sales people, but *real* commissions on top of a
    not-very-large base pay.  (As a VP at Oracle described it to us, "I
    suppose you could afford to eat on just the base pay...") And they will
    be goaled to sell a certain amount of Rdb.  If they sell just oracle7,
    they will not be making as much money as they could.
    
    Remember how behavior follows what gets measured?  Oracle sales people
    will be measured on their Rdb sales.

    Re: .191
    
    >Now in the age of Microsoft, WNT, and $400.00-$2000.00 database engine 
    >products
    
    Are these cheap engines robust?  How many concurrent users can they
    handle?  And can the network handle the traffic from all those PCs?
    
    I don't think mainframe-style databases are anywhere close to obsolete.

I just finished speaking with someone who shall remain anonymous and was told
that originally, all DC RDB specialists were to go to Oracle, but were pulled
out at the last minute.  Sounds like some sort of internal Digital power play
to me.  This person also told me that they had talked with several of their
exisiting customers and there were two general statements from the customers;

1) The customer had purchased their expertise because the customer knew that
the Digital employee had access to engineering if needed.  Now that Oracle
was the owner of RDB engineering resources, the customer would be purchasing
future consulting from Oracle, not Digital.

2) Digital had spent years convincing the customer that they should purchase
their database management system from their O/S and hardware vendor, i.e.,
who else would give them the best performance and support than the vendor that
supplied all the parts, and now the customer was faced with replacing RDB and
the customer would replace RDB AND THE DEC HARDWARE that goes with it.

There's not much we can do about case #1 and I can only hope that those taking
the position of case #2, are doing so only in the heat of the moment,
otherwise, I fear we have shot another rather large hole in our feet.

On a slightly related note, a few months ago, a dozen or so people in our
facility moved about 50' and swapped places, because the PSC manager "...wanted
all his people in one area."  Well, a few weeks after this, (about 1 month
ago), the PSC manager turned in his resignation to go work for Oracle.  I'm sure
glad we have all this money so managers can play these silly games, and aren't
wasting it on things like raises and office supplies:-(

Bob

    A question for 'those in the know' about the Rdb sale:
    
    If I were a customer without a rdb-type database and wanted to
    implement one, why would I use Rdb?
    
    That is the question.

    re .-1
    
    Well how about if I wanted superb performance (TPC-A world record
    tripled) or ease of maintainence (in the newsgroup those with
    experience of Oracle and Rdb say that they need 5 DBAs for 1 Oracle db
    to 1 DBA for Rdb). Or how about 24*7 requirements (most Rdb management
    operations can be done online). Or how about VLDB features or how
    about high technology (14 patents filed) or how about ...
    
    Wait a moment it has just occurred to me that this conversation is
    symptomatic of  why the move to Oracle is such a good thing for the
    product. Talk to an Oracle employee (even one who is not working on the
    engine itself) and ask them why a customer should use Oracle. They
    would not have a problem in answering in detail. We (the Rdb group)
    have spent too much energy in this company justifying ourselves and not
    enough selling it to customers. We have had continuous backbiting from
    parts of the company which has sapped our ability to be a real player.
    
    In this same notesfile I entered the details of the world record
    breaking TPC-A rdb performance - within a couple of notes there were
    those carping at why we were doing such things etc,etc.
    
    Yes I'm glad to be going to work for a software company. Good luck with
    the chips.
    
    
    regards,
    Phil

     re:  .210
    
..    ...    
..    Yes I'm glad to be going to work for a software company. Good luck with
..    the chips.
..    ...
    
    
    Nice touch !
    
    So how long will Digital employees have to put up with this. I guess
    once the deal is done and after V6.1 ships then , a long time to
    absorb this kind of bashing.

re.202:

>The terms and conditions clearly state that ORACLE will continue to
>develop and enhance Rdb for a minimum of 2-3 years 

Hardly a clear statement. Which is it 2 or 3 years? 

Dave.

    Re .211                                                   
    Oh well - I shouldn't make throwaway comments especially late at night.
    Actually I do wish the remainder of Digital well. Working for Digital
    has been very good for me. Working with Rdb has been even better. Now
    the two are parting I am glad to be staying with Rdb. I am sure that
    we will be working together though in different companies.
    Looking at what Palmer said in his latest DVN this deal makes sense in
    his strategy. Whether the stategy is correct I've no idea. But for me I
    would imagine all the other software products left behind (save the
    operating systems and the compilers) are vulnerable.
    
    Re .212 I believe (but am prepared to stand corrected) that the
    vagueness around that commitment is that it talks of a commitment to
    current project plans. The time scales for these plans go 2-3 years
    out.
    
    regards,
    
    Phil

    re: .213
    
    >>> Looking at what Palmer said in his latest DVN this deal makes sense
    >>> in his strategy. Whether the stategy is correct I've no idea. But 
    >>> for me I would imagine all the other software products left behind 
    >>> (save the operating systems and the compilers) are vulnerable.
    
    At least it appears that Digital finally has a strategy.  It might turn
    out to be wrong, and since I'm software-oriented myself I don't *like*
    deemphasizing software, but I think it's a very positive sign that BP
    has articulated a strategy and is taking steps to make it happen.  I
    mean, he has even made decisions instead of dithering around until the
    next round of cuts. 
    
    It's painful to live through, and some of what has to be done is
    certainly not what would have been done in a prosperous company and a
    prosperous economy.  But for the first time in a long time I think
    something that's recognizably Digital will pull through this crisis. 
    
    --bonnie, who remembers that the DEC she started working for in 1980
    was *not* a software company :)

    I think this was a very bad move, and will cause more ill will than the
    benifits.  Oracle on NT alpha is just too small a market now or in the
    near future.
    
    As an employee and stock holder I mad that we got so little for such a
    great product.  As a stock holder I want to know if there were better
    offers?   Now as a former Digital Consultant or whatever they call us
    now, how will I get support for this product with the current customers
    I support.   Where are the details to this delema!
    
    - Mike
     
    
    Can someone answer this?
    
    

$108M doesn't sound like much, but it also includes taking a bunch of
employees as well, so that's worth something significant.

The public reaction I've seen has been positive.  I'd be delighted if this
works out the way it's supposed to.  If it was a choice between killing off
Rdb because Digital had starved it to death and letting Oracle have it,
it's better off at Oracle.

Users have said that Oracle was probably the best choice of the major
database vendors to take it on.

					Steve

    RE: 3185.205
    
>>> Only DEC sells products that are ALMOST exactly alike and can't 
>>> explain what the significant differences are.  An example is the POLYCENTER
>>> solutions product.  There's DEC FullSail with a Performance Monitoring
>>> component,  this allows monitoring system performance.  And then there's
>>> POLYCENTER Performance Solutions for UNIX.  Why not just combine these two
>>> products.
    
    It is the same product. It is sold as a standalone product as well as
    a component of the FullSail suite of system management products. Some
    customers want individual products and some want a product suite. That
    is the difference.
    
    /P.B. Bhat
    

    re: .210
    
    You missed my point.  You gave very good (and hopefully) well known
    technical reasons for choosing Rdb over Oracle.
    
    What I was asking was for business reasons to embark on an Rdb path
    today.  There is talking of the continued selling of Rdb.  But there
    needs to been good business justification.  Right now, as far as I
    know, there is no defined migration plan to the eventual singe database
    product.  In fact, there is risk assoicated with using the Rdb
    technology without knowing if it will be available downstream.
    
    Further, the committed releases of Rdb (6.1 & 6.2?) are minor releases
    - not major ones with significant increases in technology.  This gives
    the impression that Rdb is in maintenance mode.  If I am wrong on this,
    please correct.
    
    Unfortunately, your excellent technically reasons for implementing new
    Rdb applications also give good business reasons for not using it on
    any new application.
    
    The question around the selling of Rdb being good, bad, or whatever is
    not important now.  It is a done deal, as I understand it.  What is
    important is understanding where we go with the customers from here. 
    So far, lacking any announcements to the contary, it has to be go with
    Oracle and get off Rdb as soon as you can.
    
    Can somebody please address this issue?
    
    rww

    6.1 is the port to OSF, and it was no simple "maintenance" release!
    
    6.2 adds Xopen two-phase-commit support and some multimedia stuff.
    Not "maintenance" either.

	6.2 is also the Alpha/NT port. Not minor by any means.

	Roy

>>    What I was asking was for business reasons to embark on an Rdb path
>>    today. 

There are none, unless you *need* world record TPS today. But that's beside the
point. Oracle bought this to get two things:

1) a pile of new customers, already spending big db bucks.

2) access to the world's best rdb technology.

In a few years, they will have folded the world's best rdb technology into
the world's most profitable rdb. They are betting that this will be enough to
protect them from Microsoft :-)

--RS

    re: .221
    
    MicroSoft - exactly!!
    
    re: 220 & .219
    
    Thank you.  This is goodness.
    
    Best wishes to the Rdb people off to Oracle land.  Having support
    Oracle on site for 2 years, you will indeed be value added, IMHO.
    
    rww

RE: .214 -< at least [Bob Palmer]'s making difficult decisions >-

That sums up my good feelings about this move.  Whether I agree with it or
not is irrelevant: the senior people of this company are making strong
substantive changes to Digital.  We may like the decisions, we may hate the
decisions, the actions may turn out to be the best move ever made, the actions
may lead us into complete bankruptcy: whatever the outcome, you have to admit 
that finally we are seeing decisive actions (and dare I say leadership) from 
the top...

This is not a bird cage re-organization!  This is not changing the color of
the logo from blue to red!  This is real.  This is getting us talked about
in the press (and as many people have observed, almost all of the coverage
has been favorable). Thank you, Bob/Enrico/Charlie/whoever_did_it, for finally 
*doing something*!


RE: .218

>    The question around the selling of Rdb being good, bad, or whatever is
>    not important now.  It is a done deal, as I understand it.  What is
>    important is understanding where we go with the customers from here. 
>    So far, lacking any announcements to the contary, it has to be go with
>    Oracle and get off Rdb as soon as you can.
>    
>    Can some please address this issue?

Well, I spent some time with customers this week, and a lot of it was spent
dealing with this issue.  Every Rdb customer I talked to this week has based 
their development environment on Rdb: this is "bet your business" stuff.  
The customers ranged from software development groups which provide tools
to their parent companies, to companies with production databases on huge 
VAXclusters, where each hour of down-time means that their customers don't 
send them $400K+.

The reactions ranged from "But I can still buy it from Digital, right?" to
"Finally, Rdb will get the attention it deserves".  There were *NO* negative
comments, and I couldn't find anyone who felt that they had to abandon Rdb
in order to survive.

Your mileage may vary, but this is how *my* customers see it...

-- Ken Moreau

      There are two articles on the sale in this week's 'Computing'
    magazine (in the UK). I haven't time to type them all in, but here
    are some comments:
    
    "... Ray Lane, Oracle's president of worldwide operations, said: 'The
    Rdb acquisition was done purely to increase our market share.'"
    
    "A spokeswoman at utility Scottish Hydro Electric said: 'Because we're
    a major Oracle user, the acquisition is not of great concern to us.
    We're using Rdb in a very small way at the moment and are looking to
    phase it out.'"
    
    "Despite its assurances of continued investment and support, Oracle's
    motives for buying the database remain uncertain. There is still the
    cahnce that the company is buying the user base with a view to ditching
    Rdb as soon as possible. It would then offer users a path to what it
    says is a technically-superior Oracle 7 database."
    
    "The sale had to happen for Digital's sake, but for users it is a case
    of better the devil you vaguely know."
    
    Ken

    Oracle bought Rdb also because:
    - they wanted access to customers with production systems computing,
      the Rdb customer base provided that (the high-end)
    - They wanted the Rdb engineering talent and Rdb technology to improve
      their product
    - They could not allow any competitor (Sybase, Informix, ..) to own Rdb
    
    This is waht they tell me,
    Henny

>   "... Ray Lane, Oracle's president of worldwide operations, said: 'The
>    Rdb acquisition was done purely to increase our market share.'"
    
Now here's guy whos not talkin' horsemanure! Wish our management could be
as straight as thios fine gentleman!

/tOM

    
     I'd like some clarification/discussion on a few comments I have seen
    in this string.
    
    - "Rdb being starved to death..."
    What does this mean? No funding, decrease level of support, headcount,
    marketing?
    What maked/made Rdb so special at digital that people say this about
    this product?
    What about our other software products? Could one not make the same
    case?
    
    - "Someone is finally doing something..."
    Yes, so it seems. But have I missed the message of what we are all
    about? I come from Digital Consulting, what is the future of supporting
    our customers software requirements?
    
    - "market share..."
    Define market share, bought/sold, runtime, using or just installed.
    Anyone can play with numbers.
    
    - "getting the press it deserves..."
    Yes, limelight, make noise, we have some excellent products, are we
    going to make noise?
    Those excellent products, how are we going to distribute them. I see
    Home Shoping Network is now on the Internet.
    
    -Enlighten me.
    Mike Z.
    

>>>    What I was asking was for business reasons to embark on an Rdb path
>>>    today. 
>
>There are none, unless you *need* world record TPS today.

	You want busines reasons? Well, how about:
	- you need a database that can really support VLDB work, in the
	100Gb range or more
	- you want real multimedia support, where you can store images in
	your database
	- you want high performance for your application, with the
	management tools to keep that performance high

	The business reasons are the same as they have been -- buy Rdb for
	the features that it offers. Because Rdb is not going away, it is
	being enhanced and developed.

	Roy

>     I'd like some clarification/discussion on a few comments I have seen
>    in this string.

	I'll do my best to help.
    
>    - "Rdb being starved to death..."
>    What does this mean? No funding, decrease level of support, headcount,
>    marketing?

	It means...
	- our first advertisement in 4 years was run this year, on money
	from the engineering budget
	- our marketing staff decreased from a high of around a dozen 4-5
	years ago, to ZERO earlier this year
	- lack of commitment to Rdb, in things like waffling for a MONTH
	over whether to announce our world record TPC-A numbers. And then
	the announcement being an aside in one of our 100-product marketing
	blitzes

>    What maked/made Rdb so special at digital that people say this about
>    this product?
>    What about our other software products? Could one not make the same
>    case?

	Rdb has over 80,000 licenses sold, and brings in product revenues of
	around $75 million per year. Consulting revenues are estimated to
	be at least that, with service around $30 million. This is a product
	with a huge installed base, lots of revenue, lots of profit. 

	Yes, you could say many of these things about the rest of our
	software (lack of marketing, lack of commitment, no advertising).
	But I doubt you can point to such a large installed base, revnue, or
	profit stream. Or the technical leadership that Rdb displays, based
	on features, industry standard performance benchmarks, and quality.
    
>    - "Someone is finally doing something..."
>    Yes, so it seems. But have I missed the message of what we are all
>    about? I come from Digital Consulting, what is the future of supporting
>    our customers software requirements?

	The software message is due to be announced later this month...
    
>    - "market share..."
>    Define market share, bought/sold, runtime, using or just installed.
>    Anyone can play with numbers.

	I *believe* that Rdb's market share in the DEC platform market is in
	the 40-45% range. This is in terms of licenses sold, both
	development and runtime. It does NOT include the licenses given away
	back when we were bundling the RTO kit with the OS,a nd it is not
	simply a count of users. It is also not revenue. It's licenses sold.
	At least that's my belief.
    
>    - "getting the press it deserves..."
>    Yes, limelight, make noise, we have some excellent products, are we
>    going to make noise?
>    Those excellent products, how are we going to distribute them. I see
>    Home Shoping Network is now on the Internet.

	Is there a question here?

	Roy

>Only DEC sells products that are ALMOST exactly alike and can't 
>explain what the significant differences are.  An example is the POLYCENTER
>solutions product.  There's DEC FullSail with a Performance Monitoring
>component,  this allows monitoring system performance.  And then there's
>POLYCENTER Performance Solutions for UNIX.  Why not just combine these two
>products.  

Wrong ... There are *no* 2 products ... The performance part of FullSail is
nothing else than the "POLYCENTER Performance Solutions for UNIX".

Actually, engineering decided to make the performance part of FullSail a product
that can be purchased on its own.


But anyway, this shows what you wanted to say ... "DEC sales reps
are so confused because we have too many products that compete amongst
each other.  How do you differentiate them - NOT very well." 

RE 229

>>	The software message is due to be announced later this month...


Could this be the contents of the "important" worldwide DVN due to be 
held on the 21st? ( or am I putting 2+2 and getting 5 )

The old Company strategy of the 3 S's...

First there was Software, Services, and Silicon

Then there was Services and Silicon

Then there was...... eh, eh, eh

    Re.229
    
    	Roy, I don't understand why we sold RDB for only a fraction more
    than a years income from it.  Your note mentions $M75 in direct
    revenue, plus (if I understand you correctly) another $M30 from other
    indirect sources (DC), making $M105 total.  The reports tell us that we
    sold RDB for only $M3 more.
    
    	To this ignoramus, it just doesn't stack up.
    
    				Malcolm.

    re: .231
    
    What worldwide DVN on the 21st????
    
    --bonnie

>    	Roy, I don't understand why we sold RDB for only a fraction more
>    than a years income from it.  Your note mentions $M75 in direct
>    revenue, plus (if I understand you correctly) another $M30 from other
>    indirect sources (DC), making $M105 total.  The reports tell us that we
>    sold RDB for only $M3 more.
>    
>    	To this ignoramus, it just doesn't stack up.

	Well, I don't pretend to know the exact reasons for the $108 million
	figure either. I don't know of anybody who thinks this was a bad
	deal for Oracle, and of course it had to be attractive for them to
	purchase Rdb instead of letting it die a slow death. But I'm sure
	that there are months of negotiations behind the $108 million
	figure, and I'm not so sure I want to know the details.

	Roy
	

Re .232

If it cost us say $200M to produce $100M revenue then it might make more sense!

Believe me our profit margin is about 70-80%.

I give up with the negative people, you're a lost cause. I've just spent the
week talking to several Rdb customers in Switzerland and England and have yet
to come across any problems once I have explained what happened and how I
personnally feel about the deal. Everybody has been positive and looks forward
to continued great engineering and support for Rdb. Yes there are questions
about future strategies but we all need to wait for the project plans for a
evolved database to appear. In the meantime even ORACLE is calling customers
and telling them to continue business as usual and develop their Rdb systems
without fear of the future.

I also believe Ray Lane was misquoted. UK Computing seems to have a bone to
pick with Digital and only prints crap about Rdb. I'm fed up with them as well.

You'll see.

Good bye.

Larry

RE: .227
    
    >>    - "market share..." 
    >>    Define market share, bought/sold, runtime, using or just installed.
    
    When considering market share, in my mind the important aspects of it
    are:

    	Accurate depiction of the playing field (What game are you REALLY in?)
    
    	The number of potential customers who have your widget installed vs.
    	anyone else's widget 
    
    	The number of widgets you are selling now, vs. the number your
    	competitors are selling

    In RDB's case you could describe the playing field (or market) as:

	Users of midrange systems, shared minicomputers and
	mainframe computers who need and buy databases

	Anybody who needs/buys databases (including the above plus
	personal computers)

	People who buy VAXes and need databases.	

	And you can probably think of other definitions or ways
    	to carve it up

    	(I personaly prefer something like the first definition for discussing
        Rdb. We do not compete on the desktop, and I feel that saying that
        we have an xx% share of the VAX installed base is quiet
        meaningless.)

    You want to know what your installed share of all databases is so that
    you know where you stand in comparison to all other competitors. This
    gives an indication of your latitude in leading the market  according
    to your terms vs. someone elses. Although it is good to know what the
    dollar volumes are, the critical calculation is to  understand your
    share in UNITS, not dollars.

    And, you want to know what percentage of the databases being sold now
    are going into your bucket vs. your competitors. (Again, in UNITS.)
    Your sales may be increasing at a nice 15% rate like they have for the
    past 10 years, but if your competitors are all increasing their sales
    by 30%-50%, you're losing ground.

    >>    Anyone can play with numbers.

    You are absolutely right, but those who play with the numbers are only
    fooling themselves in the long run. One plays with the numbers to
    impress analysts, bosses, and customers. But in the end, the truth is
    the truth and  you eventually have to deal with reality.

    /se
    

    Re: .228, .229, & .234
    
    Thank you for the insight Roy.  I feel it was a good deal for Rdb
    Engineering and support, and Oracle.  I am just not sure about how
    Digital will come out.  Time will tell.
    
    Best of luck with your new venture.
    
    rww

    
    If the numbers on revenues quoted in prior notes ($75M for RDB
    licenses) plus consulting plus service, etc. are correct (I have no way
    to verify them, btw), then how would we have successfully competed with
    Oracle, which has over $2 Billion in revenues (includes other software
    products as well, but I think you get the drift). The continued
    investment we would require would be enormous. The new Systems Business
    Unit which includes many other business groups and products, only does
    about $ 4.5 Billion total. Go to Oracle and visit their headquarters.
    It is a huge software company. No matter how good RDB is, we can't buck
    heads with the bigger players. We need to focus on where we can be the
    market leader. This is not a knock on RDB, but we have to make choices.
    We can't make RDB sales 20 times what they are now without huge $$$$'s.
    
    Mike

    re: .239
    
    IBM was at $400 million a few years ago in license sales. They are
    attempting to make a go of the database business by porting to many
    platforms.
    
    If Rdb was ported to multiple platforms back in 1987 and combined with
    strong marketing, support and consulting, then it might have been a
    much stronger contender.
    
    michael

    I've read almost all the previous 240 replies.
    
    As far as I can see, the happiest people are the RDB guys who will work
    for Oracle and Oracle guys.
    
    It is VERY sad for me to see Digital exiting from the Software
    business. I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. But I sincerely
    hope that people in SLT have a broader visibility than mine.
    
    Personally, I'd be interested to understand what have to be, now, the
    products we want to sell when we start a systems integration effort.
    Are there guidelines, a manual or something?
    �AA

    
    	Thanks Roy.  If you don't know, I guess we'll never find out.  It
    was only inquiring minds and all that!
    
    	Good luck to one and all of those joining Oracle anyway.
    
    				Malcolm.

You got it, .240, the significant difference between Rdb and competitors
is the multiplatform capability.  Amazing that it took 240 replies before
that got mentioned.  It's probably the biggest cultural divide the Rdb
engineers will have to cross when they join Oracle.

This is the kind of rethinking we need to do.  Are we selling software?
Well, then, it won't do to sell it only on Digital platforms.  We need
to think portability from the beginning.  Are we selling hardware?  Well,
then, what software runs on our hardware?  Ours?  Other people's?

It looks to me like we're asking some of the right questions about our
hardware platforms, even though we're about two years late with it.  I
see NO evidence that we are capable of doing that with software.  As a
software developer, I find that regrettable (not to mention life
threatening).

To all of you soon-to-be-Oracle employess:  best of luck and keep up
the good work.

Steve

>You got it, .240, the significant difference between Rdb and competitors
>is the multiplatform capability.  Amazing that it took 240 replies before
>that got mentioned.  It's probably the biggest cultural divide the Rdb
>engineers will have to cross when they join Oracle.

It appears to me, from reading the notes posted by Rdb engineers over the
last couple of months, as though most of them made that cultural transition
several years ago.  It sounds like they wanted to port to many platforms, and
Digital held them back.  I did get that right, didn't I?

It sound to me as though Rdb's mission in Digital was not to win market share
in the Database market, but to leverage sales of VAXes and then Alphas. It
sounds as though the Rdb folk feel that they are finally free to see what 
they can earn.

Time will tell.

Dave

How is Rdb going to be ported to non-Digital platforms?  Isn't it still largely
written in BLISS?  Is there a concerted effort to convert it to C?

>How is Rdb going to be ported to non-Digital platforms?  Isn't it still largely
>written in BLISS?  Is there a concerted effort to convert it to C?

	Yes, there is a porting effort underway. Our focus right now is
	getting the OSF/1 version out the door (it's in mid-late field test
	right now), but the C port is in the offing.

	Roy

In one of my earlier notes, I expressed concern that this would cause customers
to abandon Digital, based upon comments I was hearing that were attributed to
various customers.  Apparently, most of this has stopped, and the main concern
now is just how much is Oracle going to jack up the rates for things, now that
their main competition (on Digital platforms) is gone.  I suspect that Oracle
will have a major impact upon how many customers get rid of their Digital gear,
depending upon how greedy they get with licensing fees.

Bob