| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 3359.1 | Blow my mind... | POBOX::CORSON | Higher, and a bit more to the right | Fri Aug 26 1994 17:21 | 13 |
|
WOW. If this is all true, I am cured. Imagine...
Digital making nonpolitical, rational business decisions, based on
honest appraisals of the marketplace, coupled with a real desire to
compete and win.
I will buy more stock. Imagine....
the Greyhawk
who is quite clearly on a roll today
|
| 3359.2 | RdB to Oracle | UTROP1::OLTMANS_B | | Sat Aug 27 1994 01:48 | 8 |
| On aug the 26th we heard that Oracle sales reps are making
non-disclosure presentations about the sale of Digital's RdB to Oracle.
The sale includes personnel as well (developers etc). So this would be
the first step as indicated in the Gartner report on our software
strategy.
Bert
|
| 3359.3 | Oracle's neatest kill | QCAV01::PANDE | | Mon Aug 29 1994 03:13 | 15 |
| HI,
It is the worst news at a time when the RDB 6.1 and the MDBMS based
on it , viz., DB Integrator was getting competitive in the C/S market
to Oracle V.7 - product set for C/S .
RDB had in it 2PC-PA and DBR , for a long time before Oracle dreamt
of it and introduced it in V.7 , typically an RDB DECDTM look-alike.
We bought Encina services, though we had supplied the DCE to OSF,
and added it to RDB and ACMS ..., and now killed the RDB.
Between the RDB and RTR, was the only viable competition to
Tandem non-stop, what will we offer now ?
The heart bleeds for RDB..
C/S Group DEIL
Dr. Madan Pande
|
| 3359.4 | DB Integrator | BROKE::SERRA | You got it, we JOIN it....DBI | Mon Aug 29 1994 09:47 | 14 |
| ...the MDBMS based
on it , viz., DB Integrator was getting competitive in the C/S market
to Oracle V.7 - product set for C/S .
.... DB Integrator is not based on Rdb. It's based on RdbStar, the
portable dbms that Digital cancelled 2 years ago.
DB Integrator is not in any of the rumors going around. It's one
of our core competencies. It's fully funded and ready to ship on
OSF soon.
thanks
steve
|
| 3359.5 | | PLAYER::BROWNL | A-mazed on the info Highway! | Mon Aug 29 1994 10:27 | 7 |
| RE: .0
I thought that piece looked familiar. I checked the date at the end and
it was written in June (not by Dec, Greyhawk). I'm not sure if the
rules haven't changed since then...
Cheers, Laurie.
|
| 3359.6 | multiple dbs | DOD2::PARKER | | Mon Aug 29 1994 12:58 | 8 |
| Also realize, that DEC DBIntegrator will run with:
* an Rdb Catalog
* an Oracle7 Catalog
* soon to be a SYBASE Catalog
Our remaining tools (DBI, Accessworks, and DBA Workcenter) will basically
be database netural.
|
| 3359.7 | From the Boston Globe (via VNS) | KELVIN::PACHECO | RON | Mon Aug 29 1994 14:30 | 26 |
| Edition : 3145 Monday 29-Aug-1994 Circulation : 5789
VNS COMPUTER NEWS: Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk
- Littleton, MA, USA
Friday's Market Fair Market Value
Quote Change Dow Jones Change 1-Dec-1993 $35.875
IBM 70 + 5/8 31-May-1994 $22.062
HPkd 89 1/4 +1 3/8 85% of lower $19.00
Msft 56.875 +0.688 1-Jun-1994 $21.375
DEC 24 7/8 + 5/8 3881.05 +51.16
DEC PRa 22 5/8 + 1/8
IBM, Digital - Short interest
{The Wall Street Journal, 22-Aug-94, p. C6}
15-Jul-94 15-Aug-94 % Change Avg Daily Vol.
IBM 4,173,246 4,432,907 6.2 2,075,347
Digital 2,374,647 3,430,571 44.5 637,323
Digital - Upcoming statement on software business
{The Boston Globe, 26-Aug-94, p. 95}
Mark Fredrickson, a Digital spokesman, said in an interview the company "is
a couple of weeks away from issuing a broad statement" concerning the fate of
its entire software business. Fredrickson said the company has identified a
number of software products that it considers strategic to its future, among
them networking software for linking computer networks. He didn't mention
database software one way or the other.
|
| 3359.8 | DBI and independence questioned | IJSAPL::OLTHOF | Doar biej mooi met | Mon Aug 29 1994 15:53 | 7 |
| .4: Would a possible sale of Rdb not seriously damage DBI if it's not
part of the possible deal? Would customers still trust us?
.6: Would we been seen as database independent after the possible sale
of Rdb to another database vendor? Would that not put that vendor in a
special position?
Henny
|
| 3359.9 | True, but begs the question? | UCLYPT::WATTS | | Tue Aug 30 1994 21:55 | 23 |
| > Also realize, that DEC DBIntegrator will run with:
>
> * an Rdb Catalog
> * an Oracle7 Catalog
> * soon to be a SYBASE Catalog
>
While this is very true, DBI will run with multiple catalogues, the catalogues
are not visible externally. If you want to look at the virtual database
created using DBI, in other words, use it to get some useful work done, then
surprise, surprise, what does it look like to the outside world but an Rdb
database? Not, mind you, that I think this is a bad thing - I've had bitter
experience trying to deal with Oracle - a database which isn't capable of
dealing with binary data. and has its limitations around date/time!
If, for example, you want a gateway from OmniSQL to DBI, the SYBASE equivalent
of DBI, then one buys the SYBASE OmniSQL gateway to Rdb. Because DBI's external
"personality" remains Rdb regardless of its catalogue database, it would seem
to me to be difficult to support the line that the "remaining database tools
would be database neutral"?
regards,
Michael Watts.
|
| 3359.10 | AND WHAT IS COMMON COMPONENTS KIT OF RDB 6.1 reqd for ? | QCAV01::PANDE | | Fri Sep 02 1994 05:40 | 14 |
| HI,
I thought when I mentioned MDBMS, it would also be assumed that I
had covered the connection of DBI and RDB-Star(the fallen one).
I donot know if there is a DBI which runs without the COMMON
COMPONENTS KIT OF RDB 6.1 and wants .... while loading..
So, Let us , atleast in-house not beat around the bush that the DBI
has nothing to do with RDB 6.1.
Well, now this chapter of discussions is closed for RDB has been
already sold, and I suppose we will never have a databse downloadable
kit for our servers and development groups to support our ABUs.
Thanks for the Clarification,
regards,
madan pande
|
| 3359.11 | a bit of trivia | CSC32::M_AUSTIN | Michael,804-237-3796,OLTP-EC | Fri Sep 02 1994 10:14 | 5 |
|
>RDB-Star(the fallen one).
Did you know that the codebase for DBI **IS** RDB-Star!
|
| 3359.12 | | BROKE::HOLDEN | Technical Director, DB Integration and Interoperability | Fri Sep 02 1994 10:31 | 2 |
| Not quite. About 10% of RdbStar was used as a starting point for
DBI. But we took all the clever stuff.
|
| 3359.13 | | FILTON::ROBINSON_M | It's only a flesh wound! | Fri Sep 02 1994 10:41 | 12 |
| This is tragic. I do not believe for one minute that Oracle will
market its own product and Rdb on an equal footing, do you?
The argument of Oracle buying Rdb for its market share is fallacious.
Our market share is miniscule.
I am totally confused as to why Oracle has bought Rdb. Oracle has
never let superior technology get in the way of good marketing. Still,
$108m seems like chickenfeed. Maybe they wanted a tax loss for this
fiscal?
|
| 3359.14 | | FORTY2::DALLAS | Paul Dallas, DEC/EDI @REO2-F/F2 | Fri Sep 02 1994 10:54 | 3 |
| > I am totally confused as to why Oracle has bought Rdb
Maybe it was cheaper than paying for head-hunters?
|
| 3359.15 | | QUEK::MOY | Michael Moy, DEC SQL Engineering | Fri Sep 02 1994 10:55 | 9 |
| re: .13
> I am totally confused as to why Oracle has bought Rdb
They'll get their money back (and more) within a year; this alone makes
it worth buying. Also, there were many other companies interested in
buying Rdb.
michael
|
| 3359.16 | | QUEK::MOY | Michael Moy, DEC SQL Engineering | Fri Sep 02 1994 11:06 | 5 |
| re: .10
DBI gets the common components code and continues on.
michael (one of the common components designers)
|
| 3359.17 | Response to market share, why Oracle bought us, etc. | NOVA::SWONGER | DBS Software Quality Engineering | Fri Sep 02 1994 12:24 | 42 |
| > <<< Note 3359.13 by FILTON::ROBINSON_M "It's only a flesh wound!" >>>
>
> This is tragic. I do not believe for one minute that Oracle will
> market its own product and Rdb on an equal footing, do you?
Both Oracle and Digital sales reps will be EQUALLY incented to sell
Rdb & the original Oracle products. Yes, there will be equal
footing. It's also not particularly hard to position the two, with
Rdb stakign out the high end production systems (but only on Digital
platforms, at least for the next year), and Oracle emphasizing
portability.
>
> The argument of Oracle buying Rdb for its market share is fallacious.
> Our market share is miniscule.
We are #1 in the DEC platform market. ANd lest you pooh=pooh that,
let me note that DEC platforms are Oracle's #1 revenue producer. So,
Rdb out-Oracled Oracle on their best platform. Our market share,
last I knew, was over 40% of the DEC platform database market. Our
product revenues were over $75 million last year, and depending how
you roll in the remedial service and consulting businesses, total
revenues were around $250 million. Hardly miniscule
>
> I am totally confused as to why Oracle has bought Rdb. Oracle has
> never let superior technology get in the way of good marketing. Still,
> $108m seems like chickenfeed. Maybe they wanted a tax loss for this
> fiscal?
From the announcement materials:
Q: Why is Oracle purchasing Rdb?
A: Oracle sees a great opportunity in the synergy between the Rdb customers
and their enterprise-wide, mission-critical applications, and Oracle's core
competencies in supplying the technology and support for these applications. In
addition, Oracle is very pleased to welcome the excellent Rdb engineering and
support talent, to acquire the Rdb award-winning technology, and to
significantly expand Oracle's strategic relationship with Digital.
Roy
|
| 3359.18 | Bull**** analyser: | FILTON::ROBINSON_M | It's only a flesh wound! | Fri Sep 02 1994 13:34 | 14 |
| >> Q: Why is Oracle purchasing Rdb?
>> A: Oracle sees a great opportunity in the synergy between the Rdb customers
>>and their enterprise-wide, mission-critical applications, and Oracle's core
>>competencies in supplying the technology and support for these applications. In
>>addition, Oracle is very pleased to welcome the excellent Rdb engineering and
>>support talent, to acquire the Rdb award-winning technology, and to
>>significantly expand Oracle's strategic relationship with Digital.
Stripped of waffle, I read this as 'we want Rdb customers so we can
supply Oracle to them, like it or not', and 'we get some good people
thrown in.'
Correct?
|
| 3359.19 | no, not correct | CSC32::WILCOX | There's no privilege like SHOW privilege | Fri Sep 02 1994 13:42 | 14 |
| <<< Note 3359.18 by FILTON::ROBINSON_M "It's only a flesh wound!" >>>
-< Bull**** analyser: >-
>> Stripped of waffle, I read this as 'we want Rdb customers so we can
>> supply Oracle to them, like it or not', and 'we get some good people
>> thrown in.'
>> Correct?
Those of us who are part of this deal don't see this statement as correct.
Liz
|
| 3359.20 | Your filter is skewed | NOVA::SWONGER | DBS Software Quality Engineering | Fri Sep 02 1994 14:19 | 35 |
| > <<< Note 3359.18 by FILTON::ROBINSON_M "It's only a flesh wound!" >>>
> -< Bull**** analyser: >-
> Stripped of waffle, I read this as 'we want Rdb customers so we can
> supply Oracle to them, like it or not', and 'we get some good people
> thrown in.'
>
> Correct?
I believe that you are way off base, and here's why. First, Oracle
could have easily killed Rdb and hired a bunch of engineers simply
by raiding us for engineering talent, like Microsoft and Sybase have
been doing. People are not enthusiastic about this deal because it's
just another job; they are enthusiastic because of what they see as
the future of the product.
Second, acquiring the technology will be more than just buying some
patents and implementing a few algorithms. We are talking about
actually merging the two products into a superset product that has
the best of both worlds -- not a forced migration, but a convergence
from both sides.
Third, it may not mean much to you, but the whole idea of a
strategic relationship is VERY important from a corporate
standpoint. This is a two-way street, going beyond cooperative
selling agreements. Oracle is helping Digital by porting their
products to Alpha/NT (something they had not planned to do, but
which will help legitimize that platform), and their sales people
will be helping push Digital products -- the kind of "CHANNEL" on
which the new, slimmed-down sales force depends.
You can of course read the announcement however you want. But unless
you have talked to the people involved you're filtering from a very
narrow perspective.
Roy
|
| 3359.21 | | NOVA::FISHER | Tay-unned, rey-usted, rey-ady | Fri Sep 02 1994 14:42 | 5 |
| If DEC hadn't sold Rdb, most of the engineers would have been gone by
the end of the summer, that would have done more to kill the product
than anyone else could by trying.
ed
|
| 3359.22 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Fri Sep 02 1994 14:58 | 5 |
| *IF* Oracle does what it says it will do, then it will be good all around.
It's just that I'm rather skeptical at this time, as it doesn't seem to make
a lot of sense to me in the long run.
Steve
|
| 3359.23 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Sep 02 1994 15:33 | 16 |
| Re: .18
>'we want Rdb customers so we can supply Oracle to them, like it or not'
You don't think the Rdb customers have some say in whether they get
supplied with Oracle?
Re: .22
>*IF* Oracle does what it says it will do
Oracle has made several guarantees. Failure to live up to them will
leave them liable to lawsuits and trash their reputation. Who wants to
do business with a company that ignores its contractual obligations?
And this deal will remain _extremely_ visible for some time to come.
|
| 3359.24 | | TLE::REAGAN | All of this chaos makes perfect sense | Fri Sep 02 1994 17:23 | 19 |
| > Oracle has made several guarantees
Exactly!
While we see that Oracle has hired the Rdb group and has promised
to sell Rdb, etc. who says that is what Oracle wanted to do in the
first place?
They may be just going along with this as part of the "price"
to buy Rdb. I would guess that in neogiating the contract, the
Digital side did all it could to preserve the product for existing
customers as well as trying to take care of the Digital employees
currently on Rdb.
The final contract (do contracts like this become public?) is
surely a comprimise between Digital and Oracle and certainly
doesn't reflect any hidden agendas from either side.
-John, also a skeptic
|
| 3359.25 | Stop huggin' those trees folks! | DPDMAI::PAYETTE | How can I keep from singing? | Fri Sep 02 1994 17:43 | 25 |
|
One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that Digital will
be selling Oracle also! In general that means that Oracle will give
Digital a hefty discount on Oracle products and we in turn can resell
the product as part of a solution and keep some or all of the margin.
We have another way to make money. RDB, although a good product
technically, simply did not have the mind or market share of the
Oracles or the Sybases of the world. Keeping products around for the
sake of good engineering or functionality is not the sole determining
metric anymore.
I know that the local Oracle sales folks get paid MORE if the sale goes
through a reseller/channel --- they make 50% more commission on the
sale. This would obviously incent the Oracle sales force that is
currently taking orders directly to move more business through some of
our joint resellers (e.g. VARs, OEMs, Master Resellers and
Distributors) and also provide an incentive for them to work WITH
Digital sales reps versus against Digital sales reps.
This looks like a sound business move for both parties. The most
important thing is that our customers like the idea --- my customers
have greeted this announcement with enthusiastic optimism. Having
Oracle on WNT (Intel and AlphaAXP) is definately good for Digital
also.
|
| 3359.26 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Fri Sep 02 1994 18:04 | 7 |
| Re: .24
They'd be ninnies not to want our engineers. As for whether they
*really* wanted to sell or keep developing Rdb, they are now obligated
to do so, according to the provisions of the agreement. Since the deal
went down in the full glare of the public spotlight, I'd say they'd be
wise not to violate the agreement.
|
| 3359.27 | | NOVA::FISHER | Tay-unned, rey-usted, rey-ady | Fri Sep 02 1994 22:08 | 6 |
| I heard on th enews a few hours ago "Digital will be announcing
its software strategy ..."
Then they mentione dthe sale of datbase systems.
ed
|
| 3359.28 | After selling RDB will DBI sell ? | QCAV01::PANDE | | Wed Sep 07 1994 03:48 | 21 |
| HI,
The whole suggestion that we can promote DBI , without owning our
own RDBMS (call it RDB 6.0/RDB 6.1 common components and gateways or
RDB-STAR as some will have us believe-derivative designs are not
original work) , is just so much nonsense.
Oracle has a MIDDLEWARE and Digital has sold solutions around it
already.(I refer to SQL*NET/TNS/Listner.. and Oracle gateways to RMS,
and so on).Where will we sell DBI , only where people used RDB or were
Digital's customers.Oracle aint gonna treat RDB right.
And what about other already established middlewares in the RDBMS
arena !
UNIFACE is doing pretty well...Then the ones from other RDBMS
vendors ...
The whole deal - selling off RDB -- may look great from the 30,000
but it is just another step towards making Digital a box selling
company only, or keep it at that.Great idea it is ..
regards,
with sorrow in the heart,
madan pande
|
| 3359.29 | No DB needed by IBI | BROKE::SERRA | You got it, we JOIN it....DBI | Wed Sep 07 1994 08:29 | 9 |
| Does EDA/SQL have it's own database?
NO.
IBI's EDA/SQL is the number 1 data integration product as far as
market recognition and sales.
steve
|
| 3359.30 | ??? | AKOCOA::OUELLETTE | | Wed Sep 07 1994 09:58 | 4 |
|
Can someone tell me ruffly how many employees will be chopped
off our headcount with this Rdb move???
|
| 3359.31 | | QUEK::MOY | Michael Moy, DEC SQL Engineering | Wed Sep 07 1994 10:06 | 13 |
| From the Q & A:
Q: Does Oracle take over the payrolls of the Rdb personnel?
Will they be getting paycuts?
A: 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. Over 95% of the offers have been accepted.
|
| 3359.32 | | CNTROL::DGAUTHIER | | Wed Sep 07 1994 13:47 | 32 |
| I dunno. From where I sit (in front of a workstation, writting
software) the Rdb sell is stupid. I mean the thing was running
millions in the black and sold for a little more than what it makes in
a year. I know, I know, there are a whole bunch of things I'm not
thinking about, like ORACLE products on AXP/NT and the like. But
there's sopmething else that I haven't seen squat about in all the
bullshit thus far and that's got to do with internal use of Rdb (not
to mention all the other sw product have/had).
We here in HLO use Rdb "A LOT". Without it we don't build chips. I
know that we can keep the installed Rdb systems we have, but the time
will come when an upgrade is needed (=licenses=$$). And some years
down the road, Rdb will be no longer and we'll be looking at major
expenses in the area of sw rewrites and porting. We're also operating
in an environment where I see employees buying their own PC software
cuz there's no $$ in the budget for that sort of thing. What're they
going to do when I approach them with buying ORACLE for the 4 boot
nodes on our cluster! And what are they going to say when I tell them
that we're evantually going to need beaucoup (wo)man hours to port
databases and retrofit existing software? And I'm sure HLO isn't the
only site where this is a concern!
I just hope that along with all the glorious moneymaking predictions,
someone made a realistic estimate of the internal "future expense" in
selling Rdb.
I suppose one way to avoid handling future HLO software concerns is to
sell the place. But that's another story.
-dave
|
| 3359.33 | | QUEK::MOY | Michael Moy, DEC SQL Engineering | Wed Sep 07 1994 14:05 | 7 |
| re: Internal Use Licenses
This stuff was in the contract and there are folks looking into this.
Information will probably wind up in the nova::rdb_transition notes
conference.
michael
|
| 3359.34 | | OOTOOL::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Wed Sep 07 1994 17:39 | 9 |
| Re: .32
>And some years down the road, Rdb will be no longer and we'll be
>looking at major expenses in the area of sw rewrites and porting.
There are various public statements that this is precisely what they
(Oracle) want to avoid. If you don't have a smooth transition path,
there's no reason why the Rdb customer won't take their business to
someone else.
|
| 3359.35 | in two words | GUIDUK::GOLDSMITH | Onward thru the Fog | Wed Sep 07 1994 17:54 | 11 |
|
Sell Hardware
|
| 3359.36 | You mean like lead pipes and copper wire??? | STKHLM::STENSTROM | Still Crazy After All These Beers... | Thu Sep 08 1994 03:47 | 7 |
|
>> Sell Hardware
DEC - The Intel or Motorola of the 21th Century? Hmm interesting idea..
/Tom
|
| 3359.37 | Intel does software too..... | NEWVAX::MZARUDZKI | I AXPed it, and it is thinking... | Fri Sep 09 1994 08:57 | 12 |
|
<< Sell Hardware
>> DEC - The Intel or Motorola of the 21th Century? Hmm interesting
>> idea..
Intel makes tons of software too. Some pretty neat stuff.
Motorola I have no idea what they do.
Intel MAKES software, get this into everyones head.
- Mike Z.
|
| 3359.38 | | TLE::REAGAN | All of this chaos makes perfect sense | Fri Sep 09 1994 10:15 | 8 |
| Give me the name of some Intel software I can buy over at ComputerCity
or CompUSA....
I can believe that Intel does software, but I think its speciality
stuff (like embedded systems, etc.), not mass-market, high-volume
software.
-John
|
| 3359.39 | Pick it up! | NEWVAX::MZARUDZKI | I AXPed it, and it is thinking... | Fri Sep 09 1994 12:00 | 4 |
|
Intel LANdesk.
-Mike Z.
|
| 3359.40 | ProShare shrinkwrap SW from Intel | EPS::HARRIS | | Fri Sep 09 1994 13:48 | 5 |
|
Intel ProShare (modem-linked co-authoring -- neat stuff!)
-tom
|
| 3359.41 | Motorola - Software | LOVADA::SCHERRER | Patrick - Corp Strategic Alliances | Mon Sep 12 1994 08:01 | 7 |
| Motorola also makes interesting software tools, environments,
emulators, simulators for PowerPC developers.
A recent issue of Communications of the ACM (June or July 1994)
dedicated entirely to the PowerPC provides interesting descriptions.
Patrick
|
| 3359.42 | Intel too | NOVA::SWONGER | DBS Software Quality Engineering | Mon Sep 12 1994 09:42 | 5 |
| Intel is also focussing much more on software ofvarious types;
they see software as being very important in the face of increased
competition in the commodity hardware market.
Roy
|
| 3359.43 | If even Intel's better, we're in deep trouble | MUNDIS::SSHERMAN | Steve Sherman @MFR | Mon Sep 12 1994 11:17 | 17 |
| It seems obvious to me (could be wrong, of course) that the only way to
succeed as a sort of a 64-bit Intel is to sell Intel-like volume. It
seems just as obvious to me that we won't do that for a long time, if
ever, because the power of AXP just isn't going to be required by the
large majority of the market.
And I don't think we're going to sell AXPs unless we sell software along
with them, be it our own or someone else's.
And if it's only someone else's, we put our fate in the hand of third
party developers, who may or may not find it worth their while to port
to one AXP platform or another.
Conclusion? Well, that seems obvious to me, too, but then I'm a
developer.
Steve
|
| 3359.44 | Software Strategy World Wide Web server available | NRSTA1::HORGAN | Tim Horgan | Fri Dec 02 1994 17:32 | 12 |
| The Digital Software Products Group has established a Software
Strategies World Wide Web Server, at:
http://www-iu.mro.dec.com/public/strategy/software_strategies.html
This server provides WWW access to the official software product
strategy of record for all Digital Software Products.
This information is for Digital employees but the messages should
be shared with our customers. Some sections within the software
product strategies have been designated as "Digital Internal Use Only"
and should be treated accordingly.
|
| 3359.45 | DEC Surrenders in Groupware Wars? | CFSCTC::PATIL | Avinash Patil dtn:227-3280 | Tue Nov 14 1995 13:20 | 14 |
|
FROM: Software(tm) Magazine, Novemeber 1995, A Sentry Publication
Page 18
DEC Surrenders in Groupware Wars
Digital Equipment Corp. has abondoned its Linkware groupware software in
its continuing effort to eliminate the bulk of its software business. As
reported (see "DEC Returns to its Roots", p.4, June 1995), DEC will focus
its software efforts on networking technology.
DEC officials say all software efforts will be concentrated in the
Connectivity Software Business Unit, which will sell the ObjectBroker,
Polycenter, Mailbus 400 and other network management and messaging packages.
|
| 3359.46 | not quite dead | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8) | Tue Nov 14 1995 13:57 | 16 |
| re Note 3359.45 by CFSCTC::PATIL:
> FROM: Software(tm) Magazine, Novemeber 1995, A Sentry Publication
> Page 18
>
> DEC Surrenders in Groupware Wars
>
> Digital Equipment Corp. has abondoned its Linkware groupware software in
> its continuing effort to eliminate the bulk of its software business. As
> reported (see "DEC Returns to its Roots", p.4, June 1995), DEC will focus
> its software efforts on networking technology.
LinkWorks has been transferred to System Integration and is
being supported as an "SI product".
Bob
|
| 3359.47 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Tue Nov 14 1995 15:31 | 5 |
| re: .46
It's dead as far as being anything more than a niche product.
Bob
|
| 3359.48 | Re .45 -< DEC Surrenders in Groupware Wars? > | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC; Reclaim the Name&Glory! | Tue Nov 14 1995 22:11 | 4 |
| Hardly... I have slim to no knowledge of Linkware and perhaps I
should, but my point is not about that product line. There's something
else up our collective sleeve... Another county to be heard from!
|
| 3359.49 | LinkWorks has been transferred to SI. | MUGGER::BURKEP | Pete, Software Engineer, OSEC - UK SI | Wed Nov 15 1995 02:57 | 14 |
| Assuming everyone is actually referring to LinkWorks then it has recently been
-----
transferrred to SI, not killed off. See
HLDE01::LINKWORKS
or
http://www.apd.dec.com/lnx/
for details of Digital's software strategy regarding LinkWorks.
Pete.
|
| 3359.50 | Then it's probably for sale... | BROKE::BROKE::WRIGHT | NYO&W-Trains Spoken Here-SUSIEQ | Wed Nov 15 1995 09:26 | 5 |
|
If LinkWorks has been transfered to SI then it is probably for sale. SI depends
on partner's software they don't need/want to actually own any software.
Tom
|
| 3359.51 | What about the damage? | CFSCTC::PATIL | Avinash Patil dtn:227-3280 | Wed Nov 15 1995 10:17 | 7 |
|
Aside from the fate of Linkware/LinkWorks product itself the blatant
statements made in the article about Digital's turning away from "most" of
the software business etc. has set a defeating tone in the press over last
few years. And that I believe should be matter of concern.
Avinash
|
| 3359.52 | | ROWLET::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow! | Wed Nov 15 1995 10:24 | 7 |
| re: .51
Yep. We've dumped so much software that I would have a hard time
justifying the purchase of any Digital software, other than an O/S or a
legacy programming tool.
Bob
|
| 3359.53 | | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8) | Wed Nov 15 1995 14:32 | 10 |
| re Note 3359.50 by BROKE::BROKE::WRIGHT:
> If LinkWorks has been transfered to SI then it is probably for sale. SI depends
> on partner's software they don't need/want to actually own any software.
Actually, SI has a small and slowly growing collection of
software products; they are typically middleware platforms
that provide significant tools for SI-type solutions.
Bob
|
| 3359.54 | Add FBE to the list. | MKOTS3::WTHOMAS | | Wed Nov 15 1995 16:10 | 3 |
| -1:
Correct. It is growing. Recently productized ("Q'd up") - FBE components.
|
| 3359.55 | A view on the way out of the door. | A1VAX::GUNN | I couldn't possibly comment | Wed Jul 24 1996 15:16 | 25 |
| Given my reputation with some folk for blunt speaking I thought it
appropriate, as my parting shot, to give my interpretation of Digital's
software "strategy". This is not an official statement, it's my opinion
created from synthesizing all of what I have learned is happening in the
current and previous "downsizing". Obviously such an unvarnished
statement as that below shouldn't be given to customers.
Digital has the ambition to be the premier value added reseller of our
software partners' (Microsoft, Oracle, Computer Associates and players
to be named later) products. Digital's value added is the hardware
platform on which the applications run. Most emphasis is being placed
on Microsoft Windows NT and applications thereon. Investment in UNIX is
still important for shifting high end boxes. Investment in OpenVMS is
purely tactical, to migrate the installed base to Windows NT and to
keep them from bolting to different vendors' hardware. When Windows NT
supports 64 bit operation on Alpha, UNIX will become less important
and will probably go the way of OpenVMS.
So for Digital software developers your future lies in making other
folks applications run well on Digital hardware. If your role doesn't
fit this mold, then your group is likely to be sold off or closed down.
This is, in fact, pretty much the software strategy articulated by
Enrico Pesatori in his presentation to the ZKO software development
groups in the Sheraton Tara a year or so ago - the COMPAQ software
strategy.
|