Ken wrote:
> I would also urge you to not pull any punches:  We don't
> want to say anything to unnecessarily antagonize HP, but
> we want to tell the straight story;  IMO.

Tell the "straight story" but don't "unnecessarily antagonize".   That's a
statement that says everything and nothing at the same time for there may be
as many ways to slice that pie as there are people to tell the story.

I was looking back at HP's position paper on the HPe3000 from a few years
ago -- full of promises of customer loyalty -- and compared that to where we
stand today.   In my analysis the best that can be said for HP is that they
issued a cloud of clever white lies about their commitment to the product
and to their customers.   OpenMPE is doing the best it can to salvage the
situation for the user base.   HP would have shown a stronger commitment to
their customers in my eyes with both a emulator agreement and turn over of
source code agreement a year or two ago.   How can we keep the expertise
with MPE/iX internals alive if source code won't be available for years and
very likely never?  And if an emulator is going to be the future of the OS
then one would have liked to have seen a solid agreement hammered out and
work underway today.   As it is we are still waiting.  Meanwhile effectively
the message is send to the world: "this is a dead product with no where to
go".  And if my surmise -- that the top people at HP don't mind this state
of affairs -- is correct then how can OpenMPE do better than it has up to
now?

Now is that last paragraph "not pulling any punches" and telling the
"straight story"?   Regardless, was that unnecessary antagonism?   I believe
that like Enron, the HP e3000 story (although to lesser degree than Enron)
is a precautionary tale that needs to be told.

With protracted secret negotiations going on for years now between HP and
OpenMPE the credibility of both organizations suffer in my eyes.   How can
OpenMPE show itself to be the viable future of the platform if concrete
results are slow in coming and tentative when they arrive?   And I think
that HP is more at fault for this than OpenMPE.

Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555

>-----Original Message-----
>From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
>Sletten Kenneth W KPWA
>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 11:28 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: ComputerWorld Article: Interviews
>
>
>Jon noted an interesting development:
>
>> One of the Senior Editors at ComputerWorld is doing an
>> article on OpenMPE :)  His deadline is quickly approaching,
>> but he would like to talk with a few end users from the
>> community.  If you would be interested and willing to talk
>> with him today or tomorrow, please reply to me and I will
>> arrange it.
>
>I would love to talk to him...  BUT (unfortunately):  Getting
>myself quoted in print is potentially a big problem;  i.e.:
>Remember:  I'm a Federalli.  I've been quoted and interviewed
>in the 3000 NewsWire a number of times, but that's such a
>limited distribution mag that I've felt fairly safe;  plus I
>know Ron Seybold very well and he ID's me as "Chairman of
>SIGImage/SQL" or etc.  The Computerworld type would probably
>want (quite reasonably) to know where I work...  and to have
>something like, say:
>
>"Ken Sletten, a software engineer for the US Navy at the
>Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Keyport, WA, said ...".
>
>... appear in ComputerWorld would definitely be "not smart"
>on my part.  If it got noticed by anybody in my Command all
>the way back to NAVSEA in DC, then...  well, let's just say
>that would have the potential to become more than a little
>"uncomfortable";  i.e.:  We're supposed to get any public
>statements cleared by the PR flacks ahead of time;  and in
>this case even asking would probably be "not smart" on my
>part:  I might get asked:  "What are you doing on the OpenMPE
>BOD ?"...  Nope:  Not a good idea for me...  Sadly, because an
>article in Computerworld is a major opportunity to get some
>wide-spread PR.
>
>But...:  I certainly hope those of you in the private sector
>will not shrink from talking to Computerworld.  I would also
>urge you to not pull any punches:  We don't want to say
>anything to unnecessarily antagonize HP, but we want to tell
>the straight story;  IMO.
>
>Ken