At 10:49 AM 3/7/2002 -0600, Ronald R Horner wrote:
>You know that I find it funny that here we are fighting, kidding, or
>whatever within the community.  No one on the outside knows about these
>issues that we are talking about.  All they know is that HP and Compaq are
>getting closer to merge.  Very few know what HP has done to facilitate this
>merger.  They don't know that HP dumped it's bread and butter systems line
>do get more money to put together these ads for the WSJ.

In the first place, CSY was apparently about one percent of HP revenues,
not even on anyones' radar screen.  Most of us would be tickled pink by the
magnitude of the revenue but in relation to the total HP business, it was a
very minor player.
In the second place, it is not clear that CSY was a profit centre although
it might have been.
In the third place, those who knew nothing (or very little) about MPE most
likely included Carly.  We are blaming her for something that she didn't
do, rightly or wrongly.

IMHO HP's problems began well prior to Carly taking the helm.  I won't say
that I am particularly thrilled by many of the things we hear Carly has
done but I don't think that she is the root cause of most of what we snipe
and gripe about.

After much reflective thought, it is my opinion that dumping MPE was
strictly "just business" (or lack of same).  Although I subscribe to a
stiff dose of paranoia, I think that for the most part CSY genuinely
thought they were doing us all a favour.  We don't see much talk about the
impact of the decision on CSY folks but I would assume that many of them
find it just as hard to swallow as we do.

Most 3rd party vendors enjoy a revenue stream from annual maintenance fees
which help finance enhancements and growth, something significant that CSY
apparently didn't share in.  That can be traced back several decades at
least in HP culture.


>I was thinking this morning about the Letters to the Editor column.  What
>would happen if, rather than gripe about it here, wrote to these columns and
>fill the outsiders in.  What would happen if we talked about OpenMPE, in
>public.  Some how, it seems, that we have fallen in to the same trap as HP.
>We talk about these issues to ourselves.  But not to people who might
>actually do something about it.  At least get the issues out into the public
>forum.

Exactly why OpenMPE is most likely doomed!  We can overcome the technical
problems. We wouldn't have to be good at all to come up with a better
marketing/sales plan.  But, we are not likely to overcome the formidable
obstacles to the trendy new thinking that pervades our industry and drives
Microsoft's fortunes upwards.


>Telling people about the companies that may go under because of the amount
>of money it would require to migrate.  Or the tax dollars spent because
>government agencies that use the HP3000 have to migrate to another platform.
>What about the people that may lose their jobs over this.

Welcome to the "real world".  I left it 26 years ago to join the MPE
flock.  To the rest of the world, this is simply standard operating procedure.


>We need to take the time and write emails about these issues.  Important
>issues that should be out for all to see.  Not bitching about incorrect
>spelling and why wasn't spell check used.  If you have time for that kind of
>email, then you have time to write your local newspaper.  Spread the word
>for all to see.  And don't just stop there.  Take it national, or even
>international.  Lets make this happen, not just for ourselves but for those
>bystanders who are just as effected.

YES!!

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