> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vance, Jeff H (Cupertino) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Free MPE
>
>
> Hello Jim, and others,
>
> I am not surprised that OpenMPE supporters would read the HP
> response this way -- I would too in your shoes. Let me add
> that vCSY has always said that migrating our customers to
> other HP platforms is our highest priority. We have not kept
> this a secret and it reflects our internal priorities and
> those of our internal partner divisions (as well as many
> external partners). However, we also realize that there will
> be many customers using their 3000s past the end of HP
> support. They may be permanent homesteaders or they may just
> need more time to migrate. In either case, we want to make
> sure that these customers are successful, and in particular,
> that their 3000 won't cause significant business issues for them.
>
There is a huge difference between encouraging user to migrate and bad
faith actions designed to force a migration.
> For most of the customers using the 3000 past 2006, it will
> continue to run fine. There appears to be enough 3rd parties
> offering h/w and MPE expertise that things should remain
> fairly stable past 2006. But there is always the possibility
> of a severe security defect, or new peripheral support, or
> new internet standard, which if not fixed or implemented in
> MPE, could make it difficult to continue
> using the 3000. We are aware of these potential problems and
> we are working on possible solutions.
> I believe that the perceived gap between what vCSY hopes to
> be able to do and what the OpenMPE
> community wants us to do is larger than the real gap -- but
> time will answer that. I think the bigger
> issue is related to timing. OpenMPE wants things now or at
> least promises now, and we are not able to make those
> commitments yet.
>
Interesting wording, but how big is the gap between what vCSY hopes to
do and what HP is willing to do?
> It is argued that if vCSY does not at least promise to do xyz
> now that more and more customers will
> leave the 3000 and perhaps leave HP. Myself and some others
> in vCSY see if differently. I believe the
> biggest factor in deciding to leave or stay with the 3000 is
> based on our 11/14/2001 announcement.
HP's attempt to run out the clock has already resulted in an almost
complete collapse of interest in the OpenMPE project. Very few here
still believe that HP is negotiating in good faith and that there will
ever be a realistic license or transfer of source code to a third party.
> Many businesses were considering leaving MPE anyway and that
> announcement sealed their decision.
Yes, many businesses were already considering leaving the 3000.
What other choice had HP left them when:
Support calls were answered by engineers who did not know what a 3000
was.
CE's show up on site to install and configure new products who know less
about the 3000 than the customer.
HP Sales managers have to refer you to third party sales companies
because they are unable to generate an accurate quote for a purchase.
OS enhancements consist primarily of crippled open source ports done by
volunteers.
Of course they were thinking about leaving as you handed them their hat
and pushed them towards the door.
> So, though it is true that vCSY does not want to *encourage*
> use of the 3000 past end of HP support, we are still open to
> licensing MPE source code, to enabling 9000 -> 3000
> conversions, to opening up
> MPE diagnostics, etc, to help reduce the chances that the
> 3000 causes negative business impact past
> 2006.
>
Then do it and quit stalling.
> I do not think OpenMPE is dead. I think they've severed a
> useful purpose and will continue to be important and needed
> in the 3000 community.
I have asked the question 2 times already and received no response, but
I will ask it a 3rd time now:
What exactly does anyone think OpenMPE has accomplished to date?
Comments are my own, not my employer's... Etc.
|
