Gavin writes:

> So any change away from "HP3000" would have a potentially negative effect
>  on the existing customer base.  As far as a new name being more acceptable
>  to the rest of the world, I'm not sure whether anyone will care what the
>  name is if it isn't "Linux" or "Windows" at this point.

Let me re-iterate what I said earlier. I wasn't suggesting that the HP3000 be
renamed; I was suggesting instead that CSY be made into something that ranged
from a semi-autonomous to fully autonomous, wholly owned subsidiary of HP,
something somewhere between the model employed by GM for Saturn automobile
company, a wholly owned subsidiary of GM, to that of Agilent, a truly new
company, in the way that NBC and RCA were eventually divested itself of their
General Electric heritages. For a very long time, NBC and RCA were wholly
owned companies of GE. After they eventually became independent, they acted
as "sister" companies for the next 20 years until they were eventually forced
to split in the 1960s.

If such a condition should ever come to fruition, CSY would need a snazzier
name than "CSY". As to renaming the 3000, that wouldn't be necessary. As
Gavin says, there's nothing to be ashamed of in the 3000 name or lineage.
However, renaming it also wouldn't be much of problem either. 99.9% of the
people who the new, independent, animated and openly aggressive CSY would be
going after would not have heard of the 3000, one way or the other. Indeed,
that's the crux of the problem.

The entire reason for proposing that CSY be made far more independent than it
is now is to allow it to openly present its case to the world without having
to worry about offending the people over in the GSY and NT groups. Direct
comparisons in ease of use and reliability between the various platforms
could be made without having to use half-hearted statements and statistics.

Wirt Atmar