> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Klein [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: MPE/iX Licensing and Distribution for an Emulated
> Environment
>
>
> On 24 Feb 2003 at 14:45, Chuck Ryan wrote:
>
> > With the exception of the attempt at stealth marketing research
> > performed by the board on HP's behalf there has been little to
> > indicate any interest by the board in the community's
> opinion at all.
>
> Please tell me what that is. And be realistic ... HP is not going to
> rescind their decision. Dates have been announced and programs are in
> motion. Given the reality of today, what is it the community wants
> that is not being delivered? See my comments below about the emulator
> before answering.
>
> > The entire process has been hidden behind a stack of NDA's.
> The board
> > presented OpenMPE as an open community project and then
> stepped inside
> > the board room and locked the door on the community.
>
> Sorry, the NDAs aren't by my choice. Sometimes they're a necessary
> evil to get things done. So be it ... I'll live with it.
>
Ok, I will accept that the NDA's are not by the boards choice and that HP is
completely to blame for the total blackout of information to the community.
Based on their past record on this matter, it is not particularly hard to
believe.
Now explain to me how you are justified in railing at the community for not
receiveing your work with open arms and commenting on the things they see
that concern them. You cannot deride the community for not participating
sooner when you have given them no way TO partcipate until today. And then
because you expected applause that you did not get you attacked those that
took the first bit of real information they have received, and had a chance
to comment on, to task for daring to do so.
Make up your mind, do you want participation or not. If not, just get one of
those tapes of an audience applauding and play it to yourself every time you
think you have reached a milestone and save yourself the frustration of
receiving feedback you do not like.
> > I would love to have the ability to run a few legacy apps on an
> > emulated system. But if HP is determined to make me jump
> through hoops
> > to do it, then it may not be worth the effort. Which is
> what I suspect
> > is the goal of this convoluted approach.
>
> Can I ask how you are jumping through hoops? Here's the way I see
> this: You go to a web site, arrange for payment, agree to licensing
> terms and either download the software or wait for the CD. That's
> about as simple as it can be from HP.
>
Since HP was unable/unwilling to complete orders for software and hardware
when the 3000 was a supported product, why is it I should have any greater
confidence they will do so now that it is unsupported? As long as they
control the distribution of the licenses, they can kill MPE again but simply
following the same process of neglect they used to kill the 3000?
Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This electronic message is legally privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message or any
attachment is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be
corrected and delete it immediately.
|
