Hi Jon, and hi everyone. This is going to be a looooong message. You've been
warned :-))) !

I'd like to shed some System Integrator light on the release distribution
strategy debate. My understanding here is that System Integrators may (or
may not) have release distribution requirements that are significantly
different from those of end customers. Now, let's get a bit into details.

Jon, you wrote :

> Greetings.  I'm Jon Cohen -- I'm the Release Architect for
> MPE Software
> Releases in the Commercial Systems Division of HP.  I'm the guy that
> develops & manages the contents & schedules all the software
> releases; I
> also manage the MPE software delivery strategies, including "Pull" vs.
> "Push" and release obsolescence.

Hi Jon !

> I have loads of questions, like ...
>
>    o  What makes you decide to go up onto a newer release?

The mere availability of a new release, be it Mainline, or Express, or
Powerpatch, is enough for us to install and test it. In other words, we are
willing to test almost everything, even before it's commercially available,
to validate and certify our in-house software. We also have customers for
whom we test all new releases, to better advise them on new functionnality,
enhancements and so forth.

>    o  Which Powerpatch (first, second, third, ...?) is the appropriate
>        one to "Push"?  What criteria should HP use to determine which
>        Powerpatch is the "Push"?

As a Systems Integrator, we would be OK with a "push-everything" strategy".
See reason why just above.

>    o  Should we "Push" at all?  Would you prefer simply to receive the
>        Communicator once we come out with a release, and you
> can decide
>        whether you want it?

Same as above re: the "push-everything" concept.

>    o  Once you get up onto a particular release, how long do
> you want to
>        stay there?

For stability's sake, it would be OK if we could guarantee our customers a
2- to 3- year release stability. It's my perception that we are already
quite close to this situation.

>    o  What is your expectation concerning the availability of new
>        functionality or enhancements on your current release?

Depending on the announced support life, and proximity of end-of support and
number of commercially available releases. In other words, we would not
expect many new enhancements on a release whose end-of-support would come
within the next, say, 3 or 4 months.  Now, that raises another question :
what should the cut-off end-of-support proximity be, to determine whether a
new enhancement ought to be carried into a currently supported release or
not ? My idea is that new enhancements should be carried into the 2 most
recent available releases. If we slightly anticipate and consider that 7.0
is commercially available, that would mean new enhancements should from now
on be carried into 7.0 and 6.5, but NOT 6.0. This would also be consistent
with what I understand is CSY's strategy to at a given moment have two
mainline releases available.

Dennis Heidner also wrote some very interesting remarks about software on
CD-ROM distribution. I'm also a MAJOR fan of CD-ROM distribution, for more
than one reason :

- Ease of use : only one or two CDs, instead of 3 DDSs for a core release
- Installation with HPInstall : reduced downtime during updates, compared to
AUTOINST
- Ease of distribution of installation tapes from a central hub site to
secondary systems. This was already mentionned by Dennis.
- Very wide availability of CD/DVD drives on current servers : other
software manufacturer distribute on CD
- Consistency of MPE strategy with HP-UX, NT and others :
- And, last but not least, reduced cost of distribution : CDs are cheaper to
produce and, unlike subsys tapes, they are not customized.

See, it breaks my heart (and kills my business) to see my favorite OS use
yesterday's technology to perform updates. This feature (or lack of) is a
significant money waste and an even more significant image spoiler.

Another idea could be to leave the choice to the customer, or software
contract subscriber. At some point in the past, maybe 15 years ago (I'm not
THAT old, I just began early ;-)), there was a field in the software
contract application within HP that was called RPCC ("Release Phase
Classification Code", or something to that effect), that allowed a customer
to choose her/his distribution strategy. If my memory serves me well, the
possible values were like :

- RPCC = 0 : push the core release as soon as it's available
- RPCC = 1 : push delta-1. This would be called Express 1 these days
- RPCC = 2 : push delta-2. This would be called Express 2 these days

As a Systems Integrator, I would obviously choose RPCC=0. I understand that
customers who desire very stable systems would rather have RPCC=2. According
to the availability of enhancements, patches, and our own testing and
validation, I would advise my customers to either update their own RPCCs, or
order a given mainline or Express release. However, I've not heard of RPCCs
in at least 10 years. Has the idea been scrapped forever ?

Oh, btw, what are the official MR and FCS dates of 7.0 ? I'm asked this
question here, and I can't answer it.

Thanks to everyone for your patience in reading this. Feel free to contact
me again for more details if/when needed.

Christian Lheureux
Responsable du Département Systèmes et Réseaux
Head of Systems and Networks Department
APPIC R.H.
HPConnect Systems Integrator / HP3000 Expert / HP e-Partner
Tel : +33-1-69-80-97-22   /   Fax : +33-1-69-80-97-14 / e-mail :
[log in to unmask]
"Le Groupe APPIC recrute, contactez nous !"