X-no-Archive:yes
Aren't those individuals mostly with CSY? Doesn't this go to what Wirt said?
Spin off CSY, and let them run with the e3000, unencumbered by an apparent
lack of commitment to the e3000 throughout the rest of HP?

It's a hoot to me to know an AS/400 guy here, who is bright and
hard-working, someone I respect. And I see the problems they have with
network printing or web-enabling or file exchange, and think about MPE's
network printing and Apache and Samba and ftp, and wonder why HP isn't
giving IBM a run for the money. IBM even has a guy, Malcolm Haines, their
"AS/400 Marketing Chief Propagandist" (from the mailer for the 1999 IBM
AS/400e Consultants Tour, "Harness the Power"). What would we want such a
person to be called, who speaks on the behalf of the 3000? Propagandist has
some possibly negative connotations that I would think are better avoided,
and who wants to merely ape IBM? Evangelist is already taken by Apple.
Apologist is similarly misunderstood as propagandist.

I am torn here between two good opinions. I was very impressed by Denys
Beauchemin's recommendation that HP not sell individual products, but rather
sell itself. This would mean fair treatment of all of their offerings,
mention of everything from toner cartridges and CE devices to workstations
and PCs to the 3000 and 9000 servers, any and all of the products in
between, and their services and partnerships (even MS says that they will
recommend non-MS solutions). And it's been nice to see some advertising. I
have a 3000 ad posted under my little name plate. But. We are not seeing the
MPE mentioned in the same breath as NT and HP-UX / UNIX / Linux, and seldom
in the same places.

And this creates real problems. I had to explain to an architect that we
could assist a potential client with upgrading their 3000-based system
(which is in their words the engine that runs the core of their business) to
e-enable it, rather than migrating off it. I had to ask him what technology
he would want to use: SQL, Apache, SSL, Java, JDBC, XML, and then state that
all of these are available for the more current releases of the OS, and some
of these have been available for years. I also had to point out that others
responding to the RFC very probably would recommend a large, painful,
expensive, disruptive, and risk-prone migration, and that recommending the
upgrades gave us several advantages over other respondents, which would also
be advantages to said company. But the reputation just isn't there; the
architect should have been asking me what the options were to e-enable, so
their appropriateness could have been evaluated instead of the platform
being dismissed.

So what are we to do here? What should we petition HP to do? In light of
these problems, spinning off CSY frees them to become far more vocal, but to
the possible detriment of HP. And yet, it seems to offer a clear benefit to
the organization responsible for the 3000. But on the other hand, I am loath
to work against the rest of HP. It feels like having a friend in an unhappy
marriage; I would not want to recommend divorce, and yet assurances that
things will improve only remind me of previous assurances and minor
improvements.

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Ciesinski [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 10:09 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: My thoughts on Ann Livermore's comments

I would like to believe that the success of the HP e3000 is due to the
diligence
of the employes at HP
who have worked on, and for the 3000, over the course of numerous years.
They
have listened to us, heard us
and helped us.  They read and participate in this list.  To say that the
success
of our favorite platform is in
"SPITE of HP"  is a disservice to them.

Chuck Ciesinski
Hughes Network Systems
Germantown MD

P 301 601 2608

The opinions expressed are my own and not my employers.