HP3000-L Archives

March 2004, Week 4

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Joseph Dolliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Joseph Dolliver <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 23 Mar 2004 18:27:26 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines)
Now you see the picture... Dave is the Wilde card that has made it his
mission to destroy
the e3000. I will say that it is above him though. I was not sure he was
that smart to have made the decisions even though he was hand picked by the
HPers.

I will bet he had a hand two years ago to make sure there was no press at
the MPE forum meeting at HPWorld. I also heard first hand that he had no
intention to release a thing to the e3000 community.


-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of John Clogg
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] Users Lobby for MPE Support


Tom Brandt wrote:

>Two things:
>
>1. HP thinks they know their customers needs better than the customers
>themselves.
>
>2. HP values their business partners over their customers.
>
>Amazing.
---------------------------------------------

Amazing, but in view of the events of the last couple of years, not
surprising.  Dave Wilde and his colleagues at HP are not stupid -- they know
the damage being done to the Open MPE movement by their foot-dragging.  What
his comments in this article now make clear is that the choice to delay is
deliberate, and not merely bureaucratic sluggishness.

Shortly after the e3000 EOL announcement, I angrily stated in this forum
that I would do everything in my power to make sure HP would not be part of
our post-MPE solution.  I later backed off from that position, realizing
that resentment and anger should not be part of a business decision.  HP's
lack of commitment to their customers' best interests is a very valid
criterion for selecting a computer vendor, however.  Considering the way HP
is handling this licensing question, along with their efforts to stifle Ken
Sletten's and others' open disclosure of their delaying tactics, makes me
feel that I could make a very good business case for avoiding HP as a
supplier in the future.

Of course, these opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
my employer.

John Clogg

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2