| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 5167.1 | CC Of Previous Letter; Additional Details... | XDELTA::HOFFMAN | Steve, OpenVMS Engineering | Thu Mar 06 1997 10:10 | 283 |
| From: US2RMC::"[email protected]" "Jonathan Ridler" 5-MAR-1997 19:56:34.30
To: XDELTA::HOFFMAN
CC:
Subj: OpenVMS matters.
Hi Stephen,
I hope you won't mind me emailing you directly. You may have seen my recent
news posting of an Open Letter to Robert Palmer which I sent him personally
yesterday - I enclose a copy below. I would be most grateful if you would assist
the wide circulation of the letter within Digital, particularly to "influential"
people. Needless to say, please do not do anything that you do not feel
comfortable with. I have had an encouraging show of support so far in email to
me, and I hope that some positive changes might come out of the process.
For your information, I also enclose another news item I posted which, again,
you may already have seen.
Many thanks,
Jonathan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ridler (VMS Systems Manager) Information Technology Services,
Telephone: +61 3 9344 7994 The University of Melbourne,
Fax: +61 3 9347 4803 Thomas Cherry Building,
Email: [email protected] Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, 3052.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Open Letter to Mr Robert Palmer
(CEO, Digital Equipment Corporation)
Dear Mr Palmer,
From any balanced and objective view, OpenVMS is rightly recognised as the most
robust and reliable commercial-grade operating system in the industry. Digital
has in past years invested heavily in OpenVMS to ensure it is so.
However, for many years, a large majority of OpenVMS professionals around the
globe have been deeply concerned by Digital's approach to OpenVMS and its
future.
I hope you will permit me to identify a number of problems which are clearly
evident:
- The industry believes that Digital has made OpenVMS a legacy operating
system. Whether this is an accurate assesment or not is not the point -
the industry believes it to be so, and Digital is responsible for that
belief, intentionally or otherwise. In industry terms, "legacy" equals
"dead".
- Digital is unable to effectively market OpenVMS to an industry obsessed
with Windows NT and Unix. In fact, Digital cannot even convince "die-hard"
OpenVMS supporters of the long-term future of OpenVMS.
- Digital marketing is a massive company liability, most especially for the
OpenVMS division of the company.
- Digital has found itself suffering a tragic conflict of interest: it must
market Unix and Windows NT, both of which draw market share from OpenVMS.
The availability of these two products from other vendors (hardware and
software) inevitably draws market share from Digital. Digital has
deliberately chosen to prosper Unix and Windows NT at the expense of OpenVMS.
- Digital consistently penalises OpenVMS users by over-pricing OpenVMS. The
company seems obsessed with the aberrant theory that a high price will, of
itself, substantiate the claims of a quality product. For some customers it
may, but for most, (and certainly those with business acumen,) validation
comes with experience of the product. If the price is too high, people
won't use it, especially new customers.
- Digital's most ardent supporters for years have been OpenVMS professionals.
They generally now feel quite abandoned by Digital's inability, indeed,
unwillingness to prosper the best commercial-grade operating system there
is. If these supporters leave the Digital fold, OpenVMS will lose further
significant momentum, and Digital will lose customers entirely.
- Digital appears to be deeply divided internally by political wrangling over
operating system priorities and funding. Clearly, the Unix camp has won the
day in most cases. The Microsoft camp is also scoring well. OpenVMS is the
frequent loser.
- Digital has deliberately down-graded or terminated development in high
visibilty areas of OpenVMS (e.g., desktop). Visibility is an absolutely
fundamental element in the longevity of a product. In particular,
OpenVMS professionals want OpenVMS on the desktop, highly visible. If
the will to do it were there, it should be possible technically in the
context of the Affinity Programme even to make Windows NT applications
available on OpenVMS, offering an exceptional desktop environment.
Digital's conscious decision to relegate OpenVMS to being a server
environment only is lamentable and short-sighted.
- Products are developed for Unix which could and should also be made
available on OpenVMS but are not, clearly underlining that Digital's
commitment to OpenVMS has been seriously eroded from within.
- Digital seems blithely unaware that OpenVMS is the only signature software
product of the company. Windows NT is a Microsoft (proprietary) product,
and Unix (also largely proprietary despite claims to the contrary) is
available from numerous other vendors, as well as in some freeware forms.
Product differentiation is imperative if the company wants to have
recognisable brand distinction. OpenVMS is the ideal and best vehicle for
this.
- Digital fails to acknowledge the veracity and accuracy of claims made by
OpenVMS professionals as to the effect on Digital as a whole of losing the
public relations battle for OpenVMS.
- Digital seems incapable of making clear, consistent and unequivocal
commitments concerning OpenVMS, then communicating those commitments
effectively to its customers and the industry, and finally meeting those
commitments.
- Digital fails to respond, or responds extremely slowly to technical
directions which OpenVMS professionals have persistently advocated for many
years.
Digital must urgently co-ordinate its message to the IT industry. It should not
be apologetic about OpenVMS and its strengths and should loudly and persistently
proclaim its existence and its virtues. It should not just aim to maintain an
existing installed base of customers, it should make OpenVMS a strategic growth
platform.
Digital needs to aggressively push OpenVMS in high visibility areas of the
industry. Applications developers should be given every assistance,
encouragement and incentive to develop for OpenVMS, and should be pro-actively
approached by Digital.
Digital should abandon the "us and them" attitude to pricing OpenVMS - it is
extremely counter-productive for the future of OpenVMS and for Digital's image.
Digital should be making OpenVMS and its layered products extremely affordable -
certainly they must be competitively priced against Unix. The premium product
will sell itself if only people can afford it - not just the Fortune 500 people,
but the small companies that need reliable computing, the universities on
ever-decreasing budgets, and the private individual.
Digital needs to flood the academic environments (the universities, colleges and
schools) with OpenVMS. The ESL and CSLG programmes are a good start, but the
company does not follow up with heavily discounted hardware or aggressive
promotion of the operating system and associated products. As any teacher can
testify, if you stamp your mark on the young, they will remember you when they
are older. Today's students are tomorrow's professionals. If OpenVMS has no
profile in academic institutions for both staff and students, there will be no
OpenVMS professionals in the future.
Digital must solve its marketing miasma! Let the OpenVMS division market itself
independently - certainly, many of your superb OpenVMS engineering staff would
be able to do a far better job of marketing OpenVMS than any of the staff
employed specifically for that purpose.
Digital should make OpenVMS available on every platform that it sells, whether
it be a top-end server or an entry-level desktop. There appear to be no
technical reasons why this should not happen - the decision seems based on the
same flawed marketing reasoning which has led to such a decline in OpenVMS
support.
Digital must educate its support and sales staff in the features and virtues of
OpenVMS, and insist that they promote OpenVMS along with other operating
systems. All too often, these staff have little or no knowledge or experience
of OpenVMS and will only be able to recommend Unix because that is all they
know.
Digital should not oppose, and may even want to encourage the development of a
freeware version of OpenVMS, or possibly even a migration to Intel if
technically achievable.
Whilst I acknowledge that some aspects of OpenVMS development are laudable,
particularly Galaxies which promises much, clearly there are major problems with
Digital's handling of OpenVMS. If OpenVMS withers or dies, so does the true
heart of Digital, and the company will rue the consequences. If OpenVMS becomes
an arcane niche-market legacy system, Digital will have squandered a golden
opportunity to stamp its unique and indelible mark on the future of general
computing.
Mr Palmer, I urge you most strongly, in the interests of quality computing and
on behalf of the OpenVMS community, to reverse the deliberate neglect of OpenVMS
which has become entrenched in Digital. It is unequivocally in the company's
long-term interests to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Ridler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ridler (VMS Systems Manager) Information Technology Services,
Telephone: +61 3 9344 7994 The University of Melbourne,
Fax: +61 3 9347 4803 Thomas Cherry Building,
Email: [email protected] Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, 3052.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News item posted 05-Mar-1997:
I recently attended a "Vision Your Future Symposium" organised by one of
Digital's business partners in Australia, Integrand Solutions. In reality
it was a morning gathering to hear Terry Shannon speak for about an hour,
and to hear from Ron Bunker, Managing Director of Digital, South Pacific
Territory.
As might be expected, Terry spoke entertainingly and informatively, pointing
the way forward (in his opinion) as Windows NT and Alpha.
The most interesting and disturbing presentation (for me, at least) was Ron
Bunker's ten minute "Digital Overview". His 18 slide presentation made two
mentions of OpenVMS: fourth in a list of four (64-bit Unix, WNT, Internet,
OpenVMS) in the "Agenda" slide (#2), and a slide all to itself at #14. This
latter OpenVMS slide was introduced with the words: "Of course, no slide
presentation would be complete without one on OpenVMS". Ron also made
statements which either directly or indirectly state Digital's perspective
on OpenVMS and its future (at this stage anyway). As I heard them:
- The R&D dollars are going into Digital's "strategic growth platforms":
64-bit Unix, Windows NT and the Internet.
- As Ron put it, "quite candidly, OpenVMS is not a strategic growth
platform for us".
The OpenVMS slide had the following information on it:
OpenVMS
=======
Central to the core business computing of 10,000's of companies
Still the best 7x24 Continuous Computing Environment in the market today
Digital Value
-------------
. Ongoing Investment / Development
. Broad Support / Infrastructure
. Migration path to WNT
I also spoke with Terry Shannon after the presentations and to a few Digital
employees both before and after.
My opinion based on what was (and was not) said:
Digital has decided that OpenVMS has little future in the computing world
as they see it in the near future. Digital will produce a few more
OpenVMS "cutting edge" products and will then proclaim OpenVMS to be
"mature". Digital will then not invest in any further OpenVMS
development. Soon after, OpenVMS will be made a "maintenance only"
product. Existing customers will be looked after for a reasonable period
(some years?), but new customers (if any) will be pure bonus. Within a
few years of the product "maturing", Digital will encourage OpenVMS sites
to migrate to Windows NT. Within 5 to 8 years from now, Digital will be
actively promoting and assisting sites to migrate from OpenVMS to Windows
NT. Digital, meanwhile, will pour vast amounts into trying to make 64-bit
Unix and Windows NT robust enterprise computing environments.
I can only say that I am stunned and amazed (but, sadly, not surpised)!
Is this the future of OpenVMS? It seems entirely likely to me, even
though I dearly wish it were otherwise. One small chance exists to avert
this future: as Terry Shannon rightly put it to me, if people vote with
their feet and abandon OpenVMS, the future makes itself, but if people
stand firm and shout long and loud to Digital and its business partners,
to applications developers, on the Internet, and in the press, there may
be a chance to reverse matters somewhat. It's really up to us, the
OpenVMS community, to shake Digital by the shoulders until it wakes up.
As one ex-Digital employee put it to me, "the lunatics have taken over the
asylum". If my sentiments smack too much of idealism, I make no apology.
If my future professional direction lies other than in OpenVMS, so be it;
but I will let Digital know what I think in the meantime.
Jonathan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ridler (VMS Systems Manager) Information Technology Services,
Telephone: +61 3 9344 7994 The University of Melbourne,
Fax: +61 3 9347 4803 Thomas Cherry Building,
Email: [email protected] Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, 3052.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail13.digital.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA04047; Wed, 5 Mar 97 19:47:43 -0500
% Received: from rubens.its.unimelb.EDU.AU by mail13.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) id TAA00879; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 19:40:03 -0500 (EST)
% Received: from rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au by rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.1-5 #17782) id <[email protected]> for [email protected]; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:39:59 +1100
% Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 11:39:59 +1100
% From: Jonathan Ridler <[email protected]>
% Subject: OpenVMS matters.
% To: XDELTA::HOFFMAN
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% X-Vms-To: [email protected]
% X-Vms-Cc: JONATHAN
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
| 5167.2 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Mar 06 1997 10:45 | 3 |
| He sent me the same thing, I declined.
Steve
|
| 5167.3 | | KAOM25::WALL | DEC Is Digital | Thu Mar 06 1997 12:44 | 5 |
| Ok folks - let's get out the spell and grammer checkers and bash this
guys letter.!!!
8^)
|
| 5167.4 | shameful attitude | PHXSS1::HEISER | Maranatha! | Thu Mar 06 1997 12:47 | 2 |
| Jonathan would also be surprised at how many internal IM&T managers
also think VMS is "legacy" system.
|
| 5167.5 | Is all market demand/supply | STOWOA::tavo.ogo.dec.com::Diaz | Octavio | Thu Mar 06 1997 13:30 | 14 |
| Well, isn't wise not to invest in areas that the market has not increasing
demand for? Why should Digital put more money and effort if only a few
die-hard fans are going to buy it?
Mr. Ridler should direct the open letter to the media and user community. If
they decide that they want to praise OpenVMS for what it is and not pay
attention to the market pressures for "open" systems and monopolies, then
I'm sure that Digital will oblige by continuing investing on the product
line.
my 2 pennies
|
| 5167.6 | It's too late to say you're sorry... | CSC64::D_DONOVAN | SummaNulla(The High Point of Nothing) | Thu Mar 06 1997 13:43 | 5 |
| Being an OpenVMS bigot - these words resonate with me however my opinion
is that it is just too late and expensive to try and rememdy the damage that's
already been done.
Dennis
|
| 5167.7 | | GRANPA::KMAYES | Starboard! | Thu Mar 06 1997 14:07 | 10 |
| Re: <<< Note 5167.3 by KAOM25::WALL "DEC Is Digital" >>>
> Ok folks - let's get out the spell and grammer checkers and bash this
> guys letter.!!!
Why?
Keith
|
| 5167.8 | gigo | AIMTEC::JOHNSON_R | | Thu Mar 06 1997 14:08 | 9 |
| the phrase...
"you get out of it what you put into it"
rings here.
later,
rj
|
| 5167.9 | Impressive letter | FUNYET::ANDERSON | Where's the nearest White Castle? | Thu Mar 06 1997 14:13 | 4 |
| Mr. Ridler's letter is well-written he is absolutely correct. It is a crime
what Digital has done to OpenVMS and its (our) customers.
Paul
|
| 5167.10 | Not market demand, but demand creation | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Upgrade your PC: Install Linux | Thu Mar 06 1997 14:29 | 28 |
| re: .5
>Mr. Ridler should direct the open letter to the media and user community. If
>they decide that they want to praise OpenVMS for what it is and not pay
>attention to the market pressures for "open" systems and monopolies, then
>I'm sure that Digital will oblige by continuing investing on the product
>line.
Explain to me how our emphasis on Microsoft's proprietary, closed O/S
called Windows NT fits the "market pressures for 'open' systems and
monopolies" while OpenVMS does not.
We could maintain and grow an OpenVMS presence in the current
marketplace IFF we had the guts to do it. We don't. So, we hand our
user base to Microsoft and settle for moving iron.
Heck, we even have the premiere hardware platform for an open,
standard, multi-platform O/S, but we're too chicken too mention it
except in dark corners of dimly lit rooms.
It's all about DEMAND CREATION. We don't do it. So we sell the stuff
from other companies that DO do it and hope that they will create
demand for us. Right...
And some people wonder why so many people feel pessimistic about our
future... 8^(
-- Russ
|
| 5167.11 | DejaVu, all over again, It's scary. | SYOMV::FOLEY | Instant Gratification takes too long | Thu Mar 06 1997 14:36 | 13 |
| While reading the latest "Letter-To-Bob", I had a very distinct chill
at the back of my neck, because it sounded so much like the letters I
saw when we dumped the LCG architecture.
So many companies depend on OVMS for 24X7X365 performance, and yet we
are just going to shoot them in forehead and pretend that PC's can do
the same thing. I still say that if you base your companies' data on an
Intel based product, you are on shaky ground.
But then, I'm not a high-level VP, so I must not know what customers
REALLY want, eh?
.mike.
|
| 5167.12 | an opinion | MAASUP::MUDGETT | We Need Dinozord Power NOW! | Thu Mar 06 1997 15:11 | 16 |
| Greetings all,
Two painful answers for the question why invest anything in
VMS..
Painful answer #1: Because IBM, when it was in a similar situation,
loosing money for like 5 years staight etc., went back to pushing the
mainframes that "noone wants anymore." Are they doing anything
significant with their RS6000's? VMS in a similar vein is free and
makes money its just not cool to develope anything on it.
Painful answer #2: There is NOTHING, zero to be gained by dumping VMS.
We will not make brownie points anyone especially microsoft by getting
rid of it.
Fred
|
| 5167.13 | | STOWOA::tavo.ogo.dec.com::Diaz | Octavio | Thu Mar 06 1997 15:14 | 23 |
| > Explain to me how our emphasis on Microsoft's proprietary, closed O/S
> called Windows NT fits the "market pressures for 'open' systems and
> monopolies" while OpenVMS does not.
By "open" systems I was obviously referring to UNIX and by monopolies I was
referring to NT, and I don't see any market pressure (read wide customer
demand or analyst papers), other that isolated cases like the one we are
discussing here, to put more emphasis on VMS.
> We could maintain and grow an OpenVMS presence in the current
> marketplace IFF we had the guts to do it. We don't. So, we hand our
> user base to Microsoft and settle for moving iron.
> It's all about DEMAND CREATION. We don't do it. So we sell the stuff
> from other companies that DO do it and hope that they will create
> demand for us. Right...
It's all ROI, Digital expects to see a better return on a dollar invested on
any of the "3" of the 1-3-9, than on a dollar invested in VMS.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing VMS, people who know it love it, like
Mr. Ridler. It's just that is like rowing against the current, and Digital
can move faster going with the current.
|
| 5167.14 | even Intel chooses VMS for availability | PHXSS1::HEISER | Maranatha! | Thu Mar 06 1997 15:20 | 23 |
| | So many companies depend on OVMS for 24X7X365 performance, and yet we
| are just going to shoot them in forehead and pretend that PC's can do
| the same thing. I still say that if you base your companies' data on an
| Intel based product, you are on shaky ground.
Guess what? Intel's manufacturing operations here in Arizona are all
run by OpenVMS. I know because they offered me a position with them 2
months ago. They lose $3M/hour when they are down and they choose
OpenVMS.
It's not just availability either. Database processing is a huge
factor as well. Microsoft doesn't have a serious entry in the database
segment yet and it will be a few years before they became a legitimate
alternative. Oracle, Sybase, and Informix still rule the world and
they don't currently run on Microsoft operating systems.
Anyone who considers OpenVMS a "legacy" system is showing a large lack
of technological awareness. OpenVMS can still be a high-growth
platform too if you consider recent enhancements in 64-bit addressing,
VLM, cluster interconnects, and the next generation clustering
technology (mentioned in here) that we aren't supposed to talk about.
Mike
|
| 5167.15 | me too habit | ATZIS1::UHL | let all my pushes be popped | Thu Mar 06 1997 15:25 | 4 |
| > It's just that is like rowing against the current, and Digital
> can move faster going with the current.
but only dead fish swim comfortable with the current...
|
| 5167.16 | | COOKIE::FROEHLIN | Let's RAID the Internet! | Thu Mar 06 1997 15:33 | 6 |
| re.14:
Guess what? Intel is using VMS systems at all their FAB sites because
the necessary application is not available on an Intel box...not yet.
Guenther (who prefers whichever system runs the application needed)
|
| 5167.17 | | STAR::KLEINSORGE | Frederick Kleinsorge | Thu Mar 06 1997 16:24 | 44 |
| Ah, my favorite pointless discussion.
Investment models would suggest that OpenVMS is not where you
should focus the bulk of your investments. At least not anymore.
In a nutshell, OpenVMS is nearly dead now. The engineering group is in
many places falling below critical mass as is continues to lose
engineers, and cannot replace them. Although we will continue to keep
running on vapors for a while, and we may even produce a last-gasp nugget
like Galaxies... the prospect is bleak unless Digital pumps money into
it, and removes the internal stigma associated with OpenVMS.
But... the problem is, Digital cannot survive without the revenue from
OpenVMS *right now*. It *is* the only place that generates large
profits (screw the unit volumes, or market share, OpenVMS *is* the
profit center). We are raping the OpenVMS customers with abandon at
this point: "let's increase the UNIX/VMS price differential, we're
leaving money on the table" is a direct quote from a conversation I
sat in on between two business people working out the pricing on a new
system. The assumption is that the demand is not elastic, and raising
or lowering the price will not change the sales more than marginally
(and the best we can hope for is flat demand).
Why squeek out the last dime from the OpenVMS customer base, at the
risk of killing it completely? Because almost every other business
in the company is losing money.
The apparent hope of the company is that *one* of the three will
eventually start returning *profits* that can make up for the loss of
OpenVMS profits. Only they are currently losing the race. And in
losing the race, they are now pumping the cash cow hard one last time
before sending it to the butcher. As the revenue declines from
OpenVMS, the profits are squeezed out of the investment side, and from
the customers.
The death of OpenVMS was set in motion by the inability of DEC to get
the VAX back on the price/performance curve before it was too late,
and our misreading of this as start of the inevitable death of OpenVMS.
None of the attempts to find an alternative lifestyle worked out, first
it was Open Systems (i.e. UNIX), then it was "Digital is a SW company",
eventually it was "Alpha", then PCs, and finally "We're an NT company".
We're shooting blanks. And the only thing still paying the bills in
OpenVMS.
|
| 5167.18 | OpenVMS is our only strategic advantage left... | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Thu Mar 06 1997 17:18 | 21 |
| re: -.1
Fred, you shouldn't be saying the truth about Unix and NT in a
public notesfile... Someone might read it and wonder if we're
all insane!!!!;-)
Customers are strange... WNT and Digital Unix are no different
from any other offerings in the marketplace so we have to sell
our additional added value there...
OpenVMS has added value built in via it's availablity, clusters, data
integrity, backup, and few layered products that are left and we almost
refuse to tell anyone about it...
If we milk our customer's while killing off OpenVMS they will remember
it when it's time to buy the next generation of products from us...
JMHO
John W.
|
| 5167.19 | Say it ain't so! | PCBUOA::WHITEC | Parrot_Trooper | Thu Mar 06 1997 18:03 | 21 |
| re:13
tavo,
How can you state that the comppany is interrested in ROI when
we constantly 'invest' millions in upper management (Read MANY MANY
VP's with VAST salaries and huge parachutes when they screw up)
in the same vein with the product that pushed Digital through the
eighties?
There are too many people in the wrong places pushing this company by
reading the rags, and following the trends that promise wealth, and
not enough doping the grunt work of sustaining and helping the
customers's that put their faith in us prior to the new rage.
If what you mean is that the company has no face, nor integrity, then
THAT I will agree in. Too many bean counters steering the ship!
And they are textbook bean counters that NEVER look in the rear
view mirror!
chet
|
| 5167.20 | | ODIXIE::MOREAU | Ken Moreau;Technical Support;Florida | Thu Mar 06 1997 18:09 | 47 |
| RE: .17
> Investment models would suggest that OpenVMS is not where you
> should focus the bulk of your investments. At least not anymore.
Why not? IBM has no problem pushing a totally proprietary solution: AS/400.
It doesn't have an "x" in the name (like AIX, HP/UX, SolarisX :^)), and it
is not from Microsoft, so it must be proprietary, right? (heavy sarcasm)
They are making tons of money with that system, and they are rightly proud
of that. So why can't we do the same thing?
Unfortunately I know the answer to it, and it is wrapped up on the one point
you made that defines this whole topic:
> Ah, my favorite pointless discussion.
That says it all. This discussion has been going on for years, the OpenVMS
bigots (like you, John W, myself, etc) have been presenting solid cases
for growth and profit in all that time, and we have gotten nowhere. For
some reason Digital is ashamed of the most functional, scalable, reliable,
and feature rich product it has ever had, and I do not understand why.
But (academically) let me disagree with one point you made (I agreed with
virtually all of your other points):
> The death of OpenVMS was set in motion by the inability of DEC to get
> the VAX back on the price/performance curve before it was too late,
> and our misreading of this as start of the inevitable death of OpenVMS.
Digital had difficulty getting VAX back on the price/performance curve,
that was true. And I think this contributed to the decline in the OpenVMS
desktop market. But I believe that a lot of the market valued the other
attributes of OpenVMS, such that performance was not a critical factor
in the decision to move away from OpenVMS. As was stated previously, every
chip manufacturer in the world (Intel, Harris Semi, Digital, etc) uses
OpenVMS on the production line to make processor chips. It may not be the
world's fastest box, but when you are betting your business on having the
system stay up, people choose OpenVMS.
No, the decline (I won't say death yet) of OpenVMS is due to a single factor:
Digital's political decision to walk away from its OpenVMS customers, and to
publicly decommit from OpenVMS. It is just like Jupiter, but it is taking
longer, because those stupid, irrational, illogical customers keep insisting
on defying Digital and doing anything possible to buy a product that Digital
does not want to sell them. Is it possible they know something we don't?
-- Ken Moreau
|
| 5167.21 | | EVMS::MORONEY | | Thu Mar 06 1997 20:06 | 22 |
| One of the new "buzzwords" that is starting to show up in the trade rags is
"clusters". Unix clusters and NT clusters. This field will be hot soon, if
not already. One thing that many of the readers (and writers!) of those
articles don't know is that OpenVMS has had clusters for well over a DECADE
now. Clustering is a major reason why 24x7 sites are even possible on VMS.
Digital has an opportunity to take advantage of this by making it known that
OpenVMS has the "latest" hot technology AND HAS HAD IT FOR YEARS. Let it be
known that VMS is alive and well. Even revive "Digital has it now!" for
clusters. Big full page ads showing the Cr�dit Lyonnais fire captioned "Can
your data survive this? Theirs did!"
An example of an article on clustering that practically ignores OpenVMS is at
http://www.computerweekly.co.uk/news/20_2_97/H1.html . VMS is mentioned _once_
and uses ~10 year old information (says the "VAXcluster" supports 16 nodes,
when in fact the supported limit is 96 nodes, and some companies are running
even larger clusters. Also we've been calling them VMSclusters since the Alpha
came out)
I'll admit I am biased, as I work for the OpenVMS Clusters group.
-Mike
|
| 5167.22 | | ODIXIE::MOREAU | Ken Moreau;Technical Support;Florida | Thu Mar 06 1997 21:33 | 18 |
| RE: .21
Mike, your note contains two incorrect assumptions:
1) That Digital is willing/able to advertise our products to customers
(every decent advertisement or publication I have seen has always
been marked "For Digital Internal Use Only")
2) That Digital is willing to acknowledge anything good about OpenVMS,
for fear that someone might actually prefer it to Digital UNIX or
Windows NT
Come on, you've certainly been around long enough to know that neither
of these things are in the realm of possibility for Digital.
-- Ken Moreau
who just finished 3 days of training VARs, in which the word OpenVMS
was not mentioned even once
|
| 5167.23 | | COVERT::COVERT | John R. Covert | Thu Mar 06 1997 22:22 | 7 |
| >when in fact the supported limit is 96 nodes
We are raising the limit well beyond that as soon as we can put together
an announcement. (Let's wait for the announcement before we publicize
the actual number.)
/john
|
| 5167.24 | | axel.zko.dec.com::FOLEY | http://axel.zko.dec.com | Fri Mar 07 1997 01:11 | 16 |
|
RE: .21
Digital had it then.
It's a shame that this company is embarrassed to have OpenVMS.
It should be spun off as its own company but the money
grubbers will not let that happen. It's paying for parachutes
and un-earned bonus'.
Lets face it, bean counters run this computer company, not
computer people. What surprises me is that they are looking
a gift horse in the mouth.
mike
Formerly a 4th-floor resident
|
| 5167.25 | | CHEFS::KERRELLD | To infinity and beyond... | Fri Mar 07 1997 03:53 | 8 |
| I think we should keep OpenVMS and spin off the rest;
Microsoft-Enterprise Inc
64-bit UNIX Inc
NSIS Inc
etc...
Dave.
|
| 5167.26 | O no! | XAPPL::DEVRIES | downsized: your footage may vary | Fri Mar 07 1997 10:57 | 15 |
| O = OpenVMS
To many of you,
O = Opportunity
To the corporate leaders,
O = Overhead
The sooner they can dump proprietary software and build a business on commodity
or third-party operating systems, the sooner they can become that hardware
company they dream about. Fastest CPUs in the museum.
-Mark
|
| 5167.27 | a baby/bath water confusion | LGP30::FLEISCHER | without vision the people perish (DTN 381-0426 ZKO1-1) | Fri Mar 07 1997 11:31 | 17 |
| re Note 5167.20 by ODIXIE::MOREAU:
> > Ah, my favorite pointless discussion.
>
> That says it all. This discussion has been going on for years, the OpenVMS
> bigots (like you, John W, myself, etc) have been presenting solid cases
> for growth and profit in all that time, and we have gotten nowhere. For
> some reason Digital is ashamed of the most functional, scalable, reliable,
> and feature rich product it has ever had, and I do not understand why.
Somehow the very true message that Digital was ignoring (or
misunderstanding) some of the major trends in the industry
(in the mid-80s) got garbled into the message that it was
what Digital was doing that was somehow the cause of our
problems.
Bob
|
| 5167.28 | | EVMS::MORONEY | | Fri Mar 07 1997 11:41 | 9 |
| re .22:
>Come on, you've certainly been around long enough to know that neither
>of these things are in the realm of possibility for Digital.
Yes I know that. I just wanted to throw my 2� in, even if the only thing
that results is the right to say "We told you so!" someday.
-Mike
|
| 5167.29 | I've got it | ENQUE::PARODI | John H. Parodi DTN 381-1640 | Fri Mar 07 1997 14:09 | 11 |
|
Just a thought, but...
We know it is possible to change the name of this wonderful OS because
it has been done. Of course the change to "OpenVMS" was not universally
accepted or applauded, so maybe we can do better.
Let's call it "NT Classic."
JP, who will always remember fondly his first VMS
command line register dump
|
| 5167.30 | Its what My customer wants! | ODIXIE::GARAVANO | | Fri Mar 07 1997 15:06 | 10 |
| In support of OpenVMS "bigots" everywhere - My customer sees a time
when "Infinity Wave Three" allows transparent OVMS/NT clustering - he
wishes that day were today but will wait - why? - because he still has
confidence that Digital ( thats right I said DIGITAL NOT Microsoft)
Engineering will "get it right!".
He sees Infinity as "the future" for "non-stop operational computing.
He has written into his companies 5 year ADP plan.
If he can see it - Why can't we?
|
| 5167.31 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Fri Mar 07 1997 16:06 | 3 |
| Um, that's "Affinity", isn't it?
Steve
|
| 5167.32 | No, he got it right...;-) | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Sat Mar 08 1997 11:26 | 2 |
| OpenVMS... To Infinity and Beyond!!!
|
| 5167.33 | | BIGUN::16.153.176.10::Mayne | Churchill's black dog | Sun Mar 09 1997 16:06 | 15 |
| Re .14:
> Oracle, Sybase, and Informix still rule the world and
> they don't currently run on Microsoft operating systems.
We sold an AlphaServer running Windows NT and Oracle a few months back. Oracle's
Web page currently has an article about datamarts on Windows NT.
Sybase has Windows NT at their Web site. Informix didn't have any Windows NT
information after a quick look.
As for marketing, who can forget that classic line, "Digital has excellent
marketing, it's just that nobody sees it"?
PJDM
|
| 5167.34 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Sun Mar 09 1997 18:16 | 3 |
| Actually, "To Affinity and Beyond!!!" has a nice ring to it.
Steve
|
| 5167.35 | "make no mistake about it: OpenVMS pays the bills" | WELKIN::ADOERFER | Hi-yo Server, away! | Sun Mar 09 1997 20:36 | 9 |
| re .14, .16, Hmm, kill off OpenVMS and Intel won't be able to make
chips. Everyone buys Alpha then? :-)
Bob spoke a bit about OpenVMS in the Q3 Employee Forum.
Video and/or audio and/or text at
http://welkin.shr.dec.com:5010/dvn/efq309.htm
_bill
|
| 5167.36 | | STAR::KMCDONOUGH | SET KIDS/NOSICK | Mon Mar 10 1997 10:13 | 9 |
|
>>re .14, .16, Hmm, kill off OpenVMS and Intel won't be able to make
>> chips. Everyone buys Alpha then? :-)
Thank you for that one! If I wasn't laughing so hard, I'd be crying.
Kevin
|
| 5167.37 | | TLE::REAGAN | All of this chaos makes perfect sense | Mon Mar 10 1997 15:19 | 6 |
| And the trouble with NT Clusters is that it isn't OpenVMS Clusters!
No DLM, etc. It looks more like a simple failover system than it does
a way to get additional cycles. Can I hope for more with Wolfpack
and beyond?
-John
|
| 5167.38 | | 10481::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Mon Mar 10 1997 17:38 | 12 |
| > Informix didn't have any Windows NT information after a quick look.
Informix has shipped several products for Windows NT, including several
versions of their flagship database engine, Online Dynamic Server, on
both Intel and Alpha. The Informix Universal Server will be delivered
on Intel W/NT this summer.
See
http://www.informix.com/informix/products/techbrfs/servconn/2073177/2073177.htm
DougO
|
| 5167.39 | Isn't it ironic? | STAR::DIPIRRO | | Tue Mar 11 1997 11:19 | 34 |
| I work in VMS engineering on the NT connectivity side of the house
these days, putting the NT infrastructure in place on VMS to support
distributed (DCOM-based) client-server applications. I was sent off to
the NT Wizards Symposium last week in Seattle, not to be confused with
the NT Developer's Conference run by Microsoft. The "wizards" symposium
is run by Digital....kind of a DECUS for NT. Most of the speakers and
attendees were from Digital. However, this was the first year they let
"outsiders" attend the conference. So there were a few 3rd parties,
consultants, etc. there too. There were about a half dozen people from
Microsoft there out of roughly 2000 people. People I know at Microsoft
working on NT knew nothing about this symposium in their backyard. They
even asked around in engineering, marketing, and product management. No
one there knew anything about this symposium.
There were a lot of VMS people there. Often a speaker would ask the
audience how many people were familiar with VMS. There was often a
large show of hands. The non-Digital speakers talked freely about VMS
and how various NT features compared to what's available on VMS.
Clusters was a good example, illustrating how Wolfpack isn't quite
there yet with no DLM....not that it seems to matter to anyone.
The Digital speakers avoided mentioning VMS at all costs. The
speaker from Digital Semiconductor, not to be confused, apparently,
with speakers from Digital, talked about the EV6 chip and how it would
run NT and Digital Unix. Someone asked if it would run VMS. Only when
prompted did he grudgingly admit that it would. He pointed out certain
new features in his slides which, possibly he doesn't realize, are only
being supported by VMS initially. Ah, who cares?
What I find both funny and ironic is that the entire industry seems
to be converging on this new proprietary operating system called NT,
apparently not realizing that inside, it's VMS with a facelift...not
quite there yet in some areas and more modern in other areas but some
areas where it's virtually indistinguishable from its grandfather. Once
upper management discovers this, however, maybe they won't like the
N-word anymore. It'll be too late at that point. The laughter of Bill
Gates and Dave Cutler will be ringing in their ears at that point.
|
| 5167.40 | It's all been done before | HELIX::WELLCOME | Steve Wellcome SHR3-1/C22 Pole A22 | Tue Mar 11 1997 11:41 | 5 |
| I find it rather amusing (and depressing) that NT and the PC world
in general is struggling to solve problems that DEC operating systems
solved twenty years ago. Now DIGITAL is struggling along with the
rest of the world to solve them again....
|
| 5167.41 | It's a Windows- World After All... It's a Windows - World After All... | SCASS1::WISNIEWSKI | ADEPT of the Virtual Space. | Tue Mar 11 1997 11:44 | 9 |
| re -.1
Prepare to be assimilated.
Resistance is Futile
It is not logical to use anything except WNT...
Locustsoft of the Borg...
|
| 5167.42 | For those who haven't seen it before... | NEWVAX::PAVLICEK | Upgrade your PC: Install Linux | Tue Mar 11 1997 12:22 | 3 |
| re: .41
http://www.boardwatch.com/borgtee2.jpg
|
| 5167.43 | | bhajee.rto.dec.com::JAERVINEN | Ora, the Old Rural Amateur | Tue Mar 11 1997 12:51 | 21 |
| re .39:
>However, this was the first year they let
>"outsiders" attend the conference. So there were a few 3rd parties,
I believe they allowed partners in last year (but no mere mortal end
customers).
>People I know at Microsoft
>working on NT knew nothing about this symposium in their backyard.
I always though the very reason to run it in their backyard (it's a
looong way from Central Europe to Seattle) was to make sure lots of
classes are given by Microsoft people. This year, just a vanishingly
small fraction of the speakers were actually from Microsoft.
Oh, and while Mark Minasi is certainly entertaining, a 1.5 hr
presentation by him could probably be WinZipped into just a few
bytes... (and you could save the air fare and just by Windows NT
Magazine and read the same stuff there).
|
| 5167.44 | | TUXEDO::BAKER | | Tue Mar 11 1997 14:06 | 13 |
| Re .40
Not only DEC solved the problems, other manufacturing did also.
This has been the classic example to me of "not invented here".
You go with what you know, if you don't know it then do it again,
then you know it. Heavens, lets not investigate if the wheel has
already been invented.
Then again so many of the earlier systems, including DEC's, were
so proprietary that no one knew for sure whether things were good
or bad, ahh for the days of "trust me"!
Bob...
|
| 5167.45 | Follow-up to Customer (.0/.1) Letter; Responses | XDELTA::HOFFMAN | Steve, OpenVMS Engineering | Thu Apr 24 1997 14:53 | 380 |
| Article 171497 of comp.os.vms:
Path: pa.dec.com!decwrl!nntpfeed.doc.ic.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!dundee.ac.uk!zippy.dct.ac.uk!news.cc.ukans.edu!news.starnet.net!news.starnet.net!spool.mu.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!news.unimelb.edu.au!rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au!jonathan
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms,comp.sys.dec
Subject: Open Letter to Bob Palmer - Digital's reply.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
From: [email protected] (Jonathan Ridler)
Date: 24 Apr 97 12:10:52 +1000
Organization: The University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: rubens.its.unimelb.edu.au
Lines: 366
Xref: pa.dec.com comp.os.vms:171497 comp.sys.dec:51808
Some weeks ago I posted to this newsgroup an "open letter" to Robert
Palmer as well as mailing it to Mr Palmer and a couple of other Digital
personnel. I have received two written responses: from Wes Melling
(Vice President, Windows NT and OpenVMS Systems Group) and Ron Bunker
(Managing Director, South Pacific Region).
I present below, my summary of these responses and my reaction to them.
Also, for those of you who missed my open letter to Robert Palmer, it is
appended below for reference.
Summary of response from Wes Melling
------------------------------------
Four page letter.
Brief history of OpenVMS and its achievments, including:
"It [OpenVMS] was, and continues to be, a huge market success."
"As we come to the turn of the millenium, we are pleased to see that
OpenVMS is retaining its place in the industry as a viable,
profitable business for Digital. ... its technology was so advanced
that it has been easy to keep it in a leadership position."
A further list of OpenVMS technical achievements, including highlighting
that it was one of the first operating systems to offer DCE.
Indications of market penetration:
"... it sells strongly not only into the Digital customer base, but
off-base as well. Of the first 1,000 Turbolasers (8400/8200)
shipped, 480 ran OpenVMS, and 120 of these went to customers who had
never bought from Digital before."
Focus on Affinity with Windows NT:
"... (they had the same architect and are so similar in concept and
operation that learning, using and managing both is simple)."
"... we re-positioned OpenVMS as the ultimate high end for Windows NT.
Response has been enthusiastic, so much so that sales of new OpenVMS
systems are stable (in a market segment that contains MVS, OS/400 and
Tandem Guardian and is generally declining)."
Bolded statement:
"In short, we have a thriving, multi-billion dollar business which, as
a percentage, is one of the most profitable systems businesses in the
industry. We intend to invest to nurture it for our own benefit, and
that same investment protects our customers' investments and their
relationship with us."
List of three points of investment:
1. "First, we will continue to invest to make OpenVMS the ultimate high
end for Windows NT. ..."
2. "Second, we are extending OpenVMS into the Internet market. ..."
3. "Finally, we are investing to raise the bar in availability and
scalability ..."
Enhancements will "generally apply to both the VAX and Alpha platforms,
except where 64-bit capability is inherent to the enhancement."
Concerning the future:
"As with all software products, OpenVMS will someday enter an
End-of-Life phase, and you should know what our common practice is at
that time. When a software product enters End-of-Life, *and OpenVMS
has not* [Wes Melling's emphasis], software support functions are
phased out over time, based on the following hierarchy:
Software Support Functions
--------------------------
- Add Major Functionality
- Add Minor Functionality
- Support New Standards
- Enhance Performance/Reliability
- Support New Hardware
- Fix Defects
"... Past history suggests the wind-down strategy can take a decade;
the 'fix defects' stage can go on long after. As you may realize, *we
have not begun executing this hierarchy strategy with OpenVMS* [Wes
Melling's emphasis]. We have no plans to do so in the near future,
and are still adding significant new major functionality to OpenVMS."
VAX futures:
"Digital is fully committed to the large VAX installed base for sales
and ongoing support for VAX systems. ... Digital will continue to
meet the demand for new VAX systems through roughly the year 2000.
For new hardware acquisitions beyond that point, you should be
planning to use OpenVMS on Alpha or Windows NT."
General OpenVMS futures:
"We anticipate strong demand for new OpenVMS systems well into the
next decade. ... Even if we ignore new systems business, software
maintenance is in itself a profitable activity for us. ... it would
be reasonable to expect that we would still have substantial software
maintenance revenues ten years from now and beyond. While Digital's
standard software maintenance commitments are for a relatively short
term, reflecting the rate of change in the industry, broad market
and sales trends have always been a better predictor of an operating
system's longevity. The size (and loyalty) of the OpenVMS installed
base, combined with its observable resilience in adapting to new
markets, are, in my judgement a strong foundation for continuing
investment on both your part and mine."
An invitation to obtain product announcement information from Digital to
see where engineering investment is taking place now. "We believe those
investments give some insight into the way we think about the product".
Summary of response from Ron Bunker
-----------------------------------
One page letter.
Basically just a followup to Wes Mellings' letter, with an invitation to
attend some IT Direction Seminars in Australia in the next few months.
My Reaction
-----------
I am very pleased that both gentlemen received and, apparently, read my
letter to Robert Palmer. Given that Wes Mellings' letter to me was
copied to Robert Palmer's Executive Assistant, I can only presume that
Mr Palmer is aware of my letter and may even have read it.
As to the content of the responses, only Wes Mellings' letter contains
matters of substance which require comment.
The overall thrust of his response is to offer assurance that OpenVMS is
still in active development and will remain so for "the near future".
Mr Melling emphasised the areas of investment and whilst attempting to
underpin support for the operating system, laid some psychological
groundwork for its eventual retirement.
It is good to read of commitment to OpenVMS in as much as it has been
stated in this letter. The response does not, however, address some of
the major concerns expressed in my open letter.
My impression is that Digital believes its handling of OpenVMS has been
entirely appropriate and it is not willing to accept any critical
comment. I get the feeling that they think my criticisms have little or
no validity. There is certainly no trace of openness to any of the
suggestions made to change perceptions in the industry or improve
OpenVMS's future. This is not surprising if Digital believes it is on
course for the future it sees for OpenVMS. I have to wonder whether
Digital presumes my murmurings are an isolated case, rather than a voice
common to a great many OpenVMS professionals.
Whilst my concerns that Digital is winding down development of OpenVMS
are only slightly diminished, I will not be confident of OpenVMS's
future *in the marketplace* until I see what Digital does in respect of
the many issues in my letter. I want to see *action*, not just words to
show that Digital is serious about turning around the clear perception
of the industry that OpenVMS is a legacy system.
Does Digital *really* respond to customer needs when those needs vary
from *Digital's perception* of what the customer *should* need? If
Digital wants to show it is serious about the future of OpenVMS and that
it cares about the "size (and loyalty) of the OpenVMS installed base" as
well as the prospect of new customers, the Miata is the perfect
opportunity - release (and support) Miata *with OpenVMS at a PC price*!!
It would be a first step in regaining some credibility with those most
loyal of customers.
Wes Melling acknowledges that the market segment in which OpenVMS is
currently positioned is "generally declining". Since Digital
acknowledges this startling fact, it is imperative to broaden market
coverage - this can be done so easily with a *low-end* system like
Miata. Not to do so lends a degree of credence to theories that some
restraint of trade might be occuring. Other suggestions I have made
will also help to overcome the niche market into which OpenVMS is being
cemented. If, as Mr Melling says, OpenVMS has "observable resilience in
adapting to new markets", let's see Digital puts its money where its
mouth is!
In summary then, wait (for a short period only) and see - if nothing is
actually seen to happen in respect of specific issues I have raised, my
cynicism seems well-founded. If, however, Digital can show itself
*genuinely* responsive, I will be among the first to congratulate them.
In the meantime, I strongly encourage you to make your voices heard to
Digital directly at any level including the highest possible, as well as
to Digital's business partners and software vendors and in other forums.
Silence is consent - speak out where and when it counts, or do not
complain if the worst happens.
Jonathan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ridler (VMS Systems Manager) Information Technology Services,
Telephone: +61 3 9344 7994 The University of Melbourne,
Fax: +61 3 9347 4803 Thomas Cherry Building,
Email: [email protected] Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, 3052.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy of Open Letter to Mr Robert Palmer
---------------------------------------
An Open Letter to Mr Robert Palmer
(CEO, Digital Equipment Corporation)
Dear Mr Palmer,
From any balanced and objective view, OpenVMS is rightly recognised as the most
robust and reliable commercial-grade operating system in the industry. Digital
has in past years invested heavily in OpenVMS to ensure it is so.
However, for many years, a large majority of OpenVMS professionals around the
globe have been deeply concerned by Digital's approach to OpenVMS and its
future.
I hope you will permit me to identify a number of problems which are clearly
evident:
- The industry believes that Digital has made OpenVMS a legacy operating
system. Whether this is an accurate assesment or not is not the point -
the industry believes it to be so, and Digital is responsible for that
belief, intentionally or otherwise. In industry terms, "legacy" equals
"dead".
- Digital is unable to effectively market OpenVMS to an industry obsessed
with Windows NT and Unix. In fact, Digital cannot even convince "die-hard"
OpenVMS supporters of the long-term future of OpenVMS.
- Digital marketing is a massive company liability, most especially for the
OpenVMS division of the company.
- Digital has found itself suffering a tragic conflict of interest: it must
market Unix and Windows NT, both of which draw market share from OpenVMS.
The availability of these two products from other vendors (hardware and
software) inevitably draws market share from Digital. Digital has
deliberately chosen to prosper Unix and Windows NT at the expense of OpenVMS.
- Digital consistently penalises OpenVMS users by over-pricing OpenVMS. The
company seems obsessed with the aberrant theory that a high price will, of
itself, substantiate the claims of a quality product. For some customers it
may, but for most, (and certainly those with business acumen,) validation
comes with experience of the product. If the price is too high, people
won't use it, especially new customers.
- Digital's most ardent supporters for years have been OpenVMS professionals.
They generally now feel quite abandoned by Digital's inability, indeed,
unwillingness to prosper the best commercial-grade operating system there
is. If these supporters leave the Digital fold, OpenVMS will lose further
significant momentum, and Digital will lose customers entirely.
- Digital appears to be deeply divided internally by political wrangling over
operating system priorities and funding. Clearly, the Unix camp has won the
day in most cases. The Microsoft camp is also scoring well. OpenVMS is the
frequent loser.
- Digital has deliberately down-graded or terminated development in high
visibilty areas of OpenVMS (e.g., desktop). Visibility is an absolutely
fundamental element in the longevity of a product. In particular,
OpenVMS professionals want OpenVMS on the desktop, highly visible. If
the will to do it were there, it should be possible technically in the
context of the Affinity Programme even to make Windows NT applications
available on OpenVMS, offering an exceptional desktop environment.
Digital's conscious decision to relegate OpenVMS to being a server
environment only is lamentable and short-sighted.
- Products are developed for Unix which could and should also be made
available on OpenVMS but are not, clearly underlining that Digital's
commitment to OpenVMS has been seriously eroded from within.
- Digital seems blithely unaware that OpenVMS is the only signature software
product of the company. Windows NT is a Microsoft (proprietary) product,
and Unix (also largely proprietary despite claims to the contrary) is
available from numerous other vendors, as well as in some freeware forms.
Product differentiation is imperative if the company wants to have
recognisable brand distinction. OpenVMS is the ideal and best vehicle for
this.
- Digital fails to acknowledge the veracity and accuracy of claims made by
OpenVMS professionals as to the effect on Digital as a whole of losing the
public relations battle for OpenVMS.
- Digital seems incapable of making clear, consistent and unequivocal
commitments concerning OpenVMS, then communicating those commitments
effectively to its customers and the industry, and finally meeting those
commitments.
- Digital fails to respond, or responds extremely slowly to technical
directions which OpenVMS professionals have persistently advocated for many
years.
Digital must urgently co-ordinate its message to the IT industry. It should not
be apologetic about OpenVMS and its strengths and should loudly and persistently
proclaim its existence and its virtues. It should not just aim to maintain an
existing installed base of customers, it should make OpenVMS a strategic growth
platform.
Digital needs to aggressively push OpenVMS in high visibility areas of the
industry. Applications developers should be given every assistance,
encouragement and incentive to develop for OpenVMS, and should be pro-actively
approached by Digital.
Digital should abandon the "us and them" attitude to pricing OpenVMS - it is
extremely counter-productive for the future of OpenVMS and for Digital's image.
Digital should be making OpenVMS and its layered products extremely affordable -
certainly they must be competitively priced against Unix. The premium product
will sell itself if only people can afford it - not just the Fortune 500 people,
but the small companies that need reliable computing, the universities on
ever-decreasing budgets, and the private individual.
Digital needs to flood the academic environments (the universities, colleges and
schools) with OpenVMS. The ESL and CSLG programmes are a good start, but the
company does not follow up with heavily discounted hardware or aggressive
promotion of the operating system and associated products. As any teacher can
testify, if you stamp your mark on the young, they will remember you when they
are older. Today's students are tomorrow's professionals. If OpenVMS has no
profile in academic institutions for both staff and students, there will be no
OpenVMS professionals in the future.
Digital must solve its marketing miasma! Let the OpenVMS division market itself
independently - certainly, many of your superb OpenVMS engineering staff would
be able to do a far better job of marketing OpenVMS than any of the staff
employed specifically for that purpose.
Digital should make OpenVMS available on every platform that it sells, whether
it be a top-end server or an entry-level desktop. There appear to be no
technical reasons why this should not happen - the decision seems based on the
same flawed marketing reasoning which has led to such a decline in OpenVMS
support.
Digital must educate its support and sales staff in the features and virtues of
OpenVMS, and insist that they promote OpenVMS along with other operating
systems. All too often, these staff have little or no knowledge or experience
of OpenVMS and will only be able to recommend Unix because that is all they
know.
Digital should not oppose, and may even want to encourage the development of a
freeware version of OpenVMS, or possibly even a migration to Intel if
technically achievable.
Whilst I acknowledge that some aspects of OpenVMS development are laudable,
particularly Galaxies which promises much, clearly there are major problems with
Digital's handling of OpenVMS. If OpenVMS withers or dies, so does the true
heart of Digital, and the company will rue the consequences. If OpenVMS becomes
an arcane niche-market legacy system, Digital will have squandered a golden
opportunity to stamp its unique and indelible mark on the future of general
computing.
Mr Palmer, I urge you most strongly, in the interests of quality computing and
on behalf of the OpenVMS community, to reverse the deliberate neglect of OpenVMS
which has become entrenched in Digital. It is unequivocally in the company's
long-term interests to do so.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Ridler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ridler (VMS Systems Manager) Information Technology Services,
Telephone: +61 3 9344 7994 The University of Melbourne,
Fax: +61 3 9347 4803 Thomas Cherry Building,
Email: [email protected] Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, 3052.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| 5167.46 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Apr 24 1997 19:28 | 4 |
| The reply he got from Wes is a "form letter" which gets sent to anyone
who asks this sort of question.
Steve
|
| 5167.47 | HP VARs complain on HPE lack of focus | 26031::tavo.ogo.dec.com::Diaz-mail.dec.com | Octavio | Thu May 22 1997 11:44 | 128 |
| It seems that the perception of not paying enough attention to "proprietary"
operating systems is not exclusive to DIGITAL.
Copied without permission from today's internal distribution of FIRST
Computer Industry News.
============================================================================
SUBJECT: HP'S LONG ROAD AHEAD / VARS WONDER WHETHER THE 3000 PLATFORM IS
GOING TO TAKE A HIKE
SOURCE: CMP Publications via First! by Individual, Inc.
DATE: May 21, 1997
INDEX: [4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR Business via Individual Inc. : The Heart of the Matter
"A year ago, I heard from HP that the MPE environment was a priority.
Despite growing 40 percent last year, I am worried that HP is reducing its
commitment."
Richard Votaw
President
Votaw Data Systems
Fullerton, Calif.
---
HP's Response
"You can count on the HP 3000 well into the future, farther than any IT
manager is committing their plans to paper."
Cathy FitzGerald
Worldwide marketing manager
3000 series systems
Hewlett-Packard
Palo Alto, Calif.
---
Sitting at a Pamplona cafe in Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, Bill Gorton
turns to Mike Campbell and asks, "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways," he
replies. "Gradually and then suddenly."
Many things in life go like that. Support for certain products is a good
example. Gradually, interest in DOS dwindled. Then, suddenly, it was gone.
One wonders if Apple's commitment to Newton will go that route. With the
business unit reportedly up for sale, one can only wonder if support will
disappear suddenly after years of waning.
When you think about it, many products disappear gradually. Novell's
NetWare 3.x platform comes to mind, as does IBM's OS/2 operating systems
software, despite vendor claims to the contrary. One product certain VARs
wonder about is Hewlett-Packard's 3000 midrange platform.
More than 500 VARs nationwide make their living around the HP 3000 series
and its accompanying MPE operating environment. So do thousands of software
developers. But sit through an HP Computer Systems Organization briefing,
and you'd hardly know it. The realization that the 3000 line isn't HP's
biggest priority is disconcerting to MPE VARs.
"A year ago, I heard from HP that the MPE environment was a priority.
Despite growing 40 percent last year, I am worried that HP is reducing its
commitment," says Richard Votaw, president of Votaw Data Systems,
Fullerton, Calif.
Not a chance, HP asserts. Since 1995, it has taken several steps to make
the platform more compelling. For one, the product family is now POSIX-
compliant. It also includes HP's powerful PA-8000 RISC microprocessor.
As for the MPE/IX environment, it was last upgraded in August 1996.
Version 5.5 offers improved networking capabilities, high-availability
features and improved integration with HP Unix software. New Internet
services, such as the ability to communicate with Unix and Windows NT
systems in a TCP/IP environment, are also included. In addition, the MPE
environment can now support Open Market's Secure WebServer solution.
Looking ahead, HP's five-year road map promises forthcoming systems with
advanced PA-8200 chips and, later, PA-8500 microprocessors. MPE is also due
for an overhaul: Version 6.0 is expected before mid-1998 and Version 7.0 is
scheduled to follow one year later. The upgrades will include performance
enhancements, interoperability features, year 2000 capabilities and greater
peripherals support.
Despite this, companies, including Votaw, wonder why HP gives its own
product line short shrift. Cathy FitzGerald, worldwide marketing manager
for HP 3000 series, thinks she knows.
"Someone explained that the reason our executives don't talk as much
about the 3000 as our other platforms is because analysts and the media are
more interested in our NT and core Unix businesses," she says. "They'd fan
us if all we talked about was the 3000."
She agrees that HP could do a better job of marketing the 3000 line. But
she doesn't make that call. What she does offer, she says, is a compelling
business opportunity for the right VAR. After all, the percentage of 3000
units sold through indirect channels has grown to 70 percent from 30
percent in just a few years.
What To Expect
HP says support for the 3000 series will continue well into the next
decade. In reality, the issue surrounding the platform isn't one of support,
but of hope. Adequate support for the HP 3000 series will undoubtedly come
from the Palo Alto, Calif., computer giant. However, HP 3000 VARs and
software developers will have to make a decision: Stick with what will
likely evolve into a niche market, if profitable, or move on to bigger,
broader market opportunities? Such things Hemingway's Lady Brett never had
to consider.
-If you have a conflict you'd like us to resolve, send it to business
editor Deidra-Ann Parrish at [email protected].
Copyright 1997 CMP Media Inc.
<<VAR Business -- 05-15-97, p. 140>>
[05-21-97 at 13:35 EDT, Copyright 1997, CMP Publications, Inc., File:
c0519667.3mp]
|