Oops. I should not do these things late at night. I meant to just do a spell
check, but instead sent my reply out without finishing my comments on number
4. So, here they are separately.

John Burke
Burke Consulting
Tel: 916-987-0265
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

> 4. HP's comments (Dave Wilde) as reported in the "Users Lobby
> for MPE Support" article appearing in the March 22 issue of
> Computerworld:
> http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,9
> 1451,00.html
>

Where to begin?

A. From the article, "HP doesn't see the need to make a decision this year,
said David Wilde,...", referring to a decision whether to license MPE/iX
source code to a third party.

This is not listed as a direct quote so I guess we do not know exactly what
Dave said. I would like to see Dave comment publicly on this forum why HP
does not see the need. It takes time, a lot of time, to set up an
organization to manage the source code. Work needs to begin now.

B. "the company must act in 'the best overall interest' of the e3000 user
base."

There he goes again. On November 14, 2001, HP forfeited the right to say it
was doing anything in 'the best overall interest' of anyone other than HP
itself. I am insulted every time someone at HP spouts off this way.

C. "'We don't help anybody if we do damage to that overall value chain,' he
said." referring to HP business partners that provide migration services.

Those business partners all had thriving businesses before 11/14/2001. Where
was HP's concern about the "overall value chain" then? HP had no plan for
the overall value chain on November 14, 2001 and grossly underestimated what
its customers and partners would face. Here is a company that decided it
would not migrate MPE to Itanium because the ROI did not justify it, but now
wants its customers to migrate (preferably to HP-UX) even though the ROI
does not justify it.

D. "HP expects 'to make appropriate adjustments in our plans,' he said. He
said the company has been receptive to customers' needs, citing the recent
decision to extend support for MPE Version 6.5 ... to 2006"

Plans? HP has plans? All I want is to hear what those plans are. This
(extending 6.5 support) is spin doctoring worthy of a Washington political
operative. It costs HP next to nothing to provide this support because it
has said it will at the most fix major defects, and even then the "fix" may
be to upgrade to 7.x. It could continue this kind of "support" almost
indefinitely. In return, HP gets continued support revenue that it might
have lost to third parties or self-supporters.

I would have a lot more respect for HP and its representatives if it would
stop trying to spin everything as HP looking out for the best interests of
its customers. It can never partner with OpenMPE or anyone else as long as
it continues this stance.

Honesty in business as in life is the best policy.

-----

Somebody asked why, if I believe HP has acted in bad faith and OpenMPE has
been executing a failed strategy, I want to be on the Board of OpenMPE. It
is a valid question. I still have the belief that something can be worked
out that is mutually beneficial to both HP and the HP e3000 community. I do
not posses the answers. However, there are a lot of smart people on both
sides and I believe that if we can get past the posturing and sniping to
work together we can be successful. I want to give it a try.

John Burke