Chuck wrote:
...
> 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.
The board does not want NDAs, true, but there has not been a
blackout. There has been no news to share since this all
takes a fair amount of time. As we got close to being able
to make public this proposal, a Board member let everyone know
about a week early that news was forthcoming.
> 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.
I don't think Mark, other board members, or HP expects
everyone to embrace this proposal. I agree that there are
some conditions/constraints that seem unnecessary. But
I do expect the criticism to be levied in a professional
manner with the hopes of explaining your position and
making recommendations on how some of the conditions can
be improved. I would then be able to add your concerns
to the FAQ and even perhaps provide some answers. If we
don't have an answer now, the question will remain on the
FAQ until it is answered.
> 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.
I think the issue, at least for me, is more the tone of your
reply. Maybe there is not really a negative tone in your
words, but it seems so to me. If you had worked hard at something
and then let the public know about it, and the first few pieces
of feedback were all negative -- not even a thanks for working on
it -- how would you personally feel? Remember, the board is
spending their personal time, spending their own money on toll conference
calls, spending their own money on low cost promotions at HP World, etc.
I agree with Mark, if you are motivated and have insights that
are important to the homesteader/emulator community, you ought to
spend more of your own time and money and join the board.
> Make up your mind, do you want participation or not.
Everyone wants constructive participation. That doesn't mean
you have to agree, just share ideas on how to make it better.
> 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.
Pretty rude, so I don't think my initial impression was incorrect.
...
> 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?
MPE is still supported by HP and will be even when the new licenses
are available. I don't understand the first part of the sentence.
I can't imagine that HP took an order for s/w and then was
unwilling to fill it.
> 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?
True, and HP plans on keeping control of the license process.
However, we would not be spending time doing any of this if we
wished to kill the PA-RISC emulator efforts. We are trying to
make the process to buy MPE over the Web as simple and low cost
as possible, so there is less chance for "neglect".
Jeff Vance
|
