IBM won't buy VMS ... has NIH syndrome too!
Bob Ceculski
about maybe IBM buying VMS, and it seems they are either
too stupid, or has "not invented here" syndrome also ...
Sad, isn't it? They call VMS mature and suggest unix or
$%gag#$%! os400 as an alternative when VMS runs circles
around these and every other os out there ...
Bob,
Your recent e-mail query to Sam Palmisano regarding an article in the
Inquirer.net has been forwarded to me for review and response.
You ask why it would not make sense for IBM to buy the OpenVMS
business. As a former employee of Digital Equipment Corporation, I
share your sense of pride in the quality and functionality of the
OpenVMS operating system. When VMS was first being developed, it truly
represented innovation and leadership in the industry and many newer
operating systems have borrowed concepts and ideas from it. However,
while OpenVMS continues to occupy a substantial niche market position,
most enterprise customers are now looking for more open operating
environments. As noted in the article, Compaq, and now HP, have not
invested to keep up with the requirements of the customer base and the
result is an inevitable decline in installed base. With this market
position, I don't think that it would be economically viable for a
company like IBM to acquire the asset and bring it back up to currency
in terms of capabilities. It's an unfortunate downward spiral of
higher maintenance fees causing more customers to defect. There are
several attractive substitutes to OpenVMS today, with the various
UNIX-based operating systems approaching similar levels of reliability
and availability. And, of course, OpenVMS's traditional competitors in
products like IBM's zOS and OS/400 participate in many of the same
market areas. I'm sure that OpenVMS will be running many enterprise
applications for years to come, but the reality is that this is now a
mature product without a lot of growth opportunity. This doesn't make
an attractive business proposition.
Regards,
Jeanette
Jeanette Horan
VP Software Group Strategy
Main, Kerry
Bob -
Course, the exact same thing could be written about IBM's 31bit MVS
(Z/OS) or AIX OS's as well.
Heck, IBM even stated publicly their UNIX future was not with AIX:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982512.html?tag=fd_lede2_hed
"While IBM doesn't expect Linux to replace its own AIX version of Unix
any time soon, Big Blue is pushing the open-source OS in the that
direction, Steve Mills, senior vice president of IBM's Software Group,
told CNET News.com at last week's LinuxWorld trade show. "
Her letter is standard PR mixed with standard FUD ie. first praise the
competitors product, then add "but, you need to consider ...[insert std
stuff about why OpenVMS Customers should move to one of the older UNIX
architectures...]"
:-)
Kerry Main
Senior Consultant
Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co.
Consulting & Integration Services
Voice: 613-592-4660
Fax : 613-591-4477
Email: kerryDOTmain@hpDOTcom
(remove the DOT's and replace with "."'s)
OpenVMS DCL - the original .COM
Bill Todd
"Bob Ceculski" <b...@instantwhip.com> wrote in message
news:d7791aa1.03061...@posting.google.com...
> Well, I wrote for the heck of it after the Inquirers article
> about maybe IBM buying VMS, and it seems they are either
> too stupid, or has "not invented here" syndrome also ...
No: they seem to have a very well-informed view of the situation -
considerably better-informed than HP's corporate leaders appear to have.
Resurrecting an OS that has been neglected as long as VMS has been is not
easy. It would make sense for HP to do so because the alternative is to
continue bleeding existing high-margin customers (in many cases to other
vendors) - whereas with real support they could turn the situation on its
head. But for another vendor to try to pick up the pieces and put them back
together would be far less realistic: some existing customers would prefer
to remain with HP, and for the rest the inevitable turmoil of the ownership
transition (including the question of how many of the often irreplaceable
*people* who support VMS would be lost in the process) would raise as many
doubts about the system's viability as cHumPaq's incompetence has.
> Sad, isn't it? They call VMS mature and suggest unix or
> $%gag#$%! os400 as an alternative when VMS runs circles
> around these and every other os out there ...
The rest of the world doesn't agree with you, Bob. And they're the ones
whom IBM would have to convince.
I included the response you got below in case anyone missed it the first
time: it's a good example of the kind of competent leadership analysis that
VMS has not had for at least a decade - and a nice compliment to VMS as
well.
- bill
JF Mezei
> head. But for another vendor to try to pick up the pieces and put them back
> together would be far less realistic: some existing customers would prefer
> to remain with HP, and for the rest the inevitable turmoil
"remain with HP" ??????
HP has not taken "ownership" of VMS. They are simply fulfilling contractual
obligations that came with the purchase of Compaq. I don't think that VMS
customers feel any loyalty to HP unless they also have some HP products.
IBM already has a high end proprietary OS with features unmatched by Unix: MVS.
HP already has a high end proprietary OS with features unmatched by Unix:
Tandem NSK
SUN doesn't have a high end proprietary OS with features unmathed by Unix.
SUN can't attack certain markets where IBM and HP can bid because SUN lacks
the big iron for it. If Sun had VMS, it could then attack those markets.
And if Sun were to purchase VMS, then you'd find the Fred Kleinsorges of the
world extoling the vertues of Sparc and be friends with Andrew. OK, so some
would say that such events would be a sign of the end of the world :-) :-)
And SUN is also the only one truly capable of insulting Microsoft, and by
owning VMS, sun would not shy away from suing Microsoft for having stolen VMS
code. And it would not shy away from insulting Microsoft's pathetic attempts
at clustering. Sun could also bid VMS against Tandem's NSK.
Buying VMS would be a great strategic move by Sun. Why ? Because VMS has
potential and Sun is the only independant company left to own and make use of VMS.
Another possibility would be for some corporate raider to mount a hostile VMS
purchase attempt. HP would either gladly sell it, of be forced to defend VMS,
declare how profitable it is etc etc, and this would then force HP to continue
to show that it really does care about VMS by marketing it etc etc.
John Smith
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@istop.com> wrote in message
news:3EEA3427...@istop.com...
The intellectual property rights issue, I'm sure, were settled when
palmer and Gates made kissy kissy make-up. If VMS were sold
lock-stock-and-barrel to any purchaser, that purchaser would have no
claim against Microsoft.
You can be sure that Gates wasn't so stupid as to not have an 'in
perpetuity' clause with respect to 'right to
use/modifiy/distribute/sell without royalty or fee' in the settlement.
>
> Buying VMS would be a great strategic move by Sun. Why ? Because VMS
has
> potential and Sun is the only independant company left to own and
make use of VMS.
>
> Another possibility would be for some corporate raider to mount a
hostile VMS
> purchase attempt. HP would either gladly sell it, of be forced to
defend VMS,
> declare how profitable it is etc etc, and this would then force HP
to continue
> to show that it really does care about VMS by marketing it etc etc.
From a competitive point of view, HP sees VMS as too valuable to sell,
and too worthless to advertise and market.
John Smith
by Sun, HP and others that 'proprietary' is bad, that unix and now
Linux is 'good', and HP feels that they lose face if they go 'off
message' in advertising VMS as a proper solution.
The big danger is that without advertising and externally noticeable
increased customer counts, many ISV's currently supplying product into
the VMS market will go by the wayside.
Or ISV's disappear for other reasons - Oracle wants to purchase
Peoplesoft, which itself wants to buy J.D. Edwards. I don't know
enough about each company's product line to know whether there is a
VMS version in amongst them but Oracle has stated that they will EOL
all the Edwards and Peoplesoft applications should Oracle be
successful in their takeover attempt. If Oracle doesn't have a VMS
version of their HR/CRM application then that entire market is closed
to VMS.
Now there are rumblings that BEA is a logical target for somebody.
Pretty soon there is only CSWS as a *commecially* available web server
for VMS.
How many *new* customers will HP be able to attract to VMS with only
one source for critical applications/tools? and especially if that one
source, HP, is viewed suspiciously with respect to its commitment to
VMS - "HP, if you want me to believe that you're so commited to VMS,
why don't you advertise it?" How quickly will BEA users on VMS move
from VMS once VMS support is killed should BEA be taken over?
I see Proliant advertising in the local paper today, but none for
Alpha/VMS.
I see the same lack of purpose in HP's handling of the 'conflict of
the owned operating systems' as was present in Digital and Compaq. HP
has to realize that if you have several sons, the correct strategy is
to praise them all rather than praising none of them.
If HP won't sell VMS to a company that will treat it right, then the
least they can do is take Tandem, VMS and HP-UX and spin them into
standalone companies in which HP owns 90% and employees own 10%. So
they are/may be required to run their o/s on HP gear, but let them be
100% free to
market/advertise as they see fit. The employee stake gives some
incentive to be creative and innovative in expanding their markets.
"Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:ceOdnWYO1q6...@metrocast.net...
JF Mezei
> Or ISV's disappear for other reasons - Oracle wants to purchase
> Peoplesoft, which itself wants to buy J.D. Edwards.
Saw Elison on TV. He says that ailing Peoplesoft is making a big mistake in
trying to buy ailing J.D.Edwards. Oracle want to give Peoplesoft shareholders
a good deal buy buying Poeplesoft now before it sinks any lower.
If he wins, he says he will continue to support customers but said that he
would help them migrate at their own pace/wish to Oracle products. (like
stallard had said on May 7th for VMS -> HP-UX)
To Oracle, the value is the people inside peoplesoft who have great software
engineers and great support organisation.
However, another tactic is probably simply a question of spreading FUD about
peoplesoft by telling the world that Peoplesoft is very sick and if it refuses
to allow Oracle to "save it", it may go down. Such an image would not help
Peoplesoft get new sales.
> VMS version in amongst them but Oracle has stated that they will EOL
> all the Edwards and Peoplesoft applications should Oracle be
> successful in their takeover attempt.
I heard that if Oracle gets Peoplesoft, the purchase of J.D.Edwards won't go
through. One reason he wants to buy peoplesoft is to block that merger.
(perhaps he feels that if the merger goes though, it would make peoplesoft too
big a competitor to oracle)
> Pretty soon there is only CSWS as a *commecially* available web server
> for VMS.
Since CSWS is not really "commercial" since it is really Apache, I don't think
the above would be so true.
re: HP selling VMS.
I am not sure if HP is truly convinced that VMS is dead and has no potential,
or whether HP fears that if allowed to prosper under new, separate management,
it would become too fierce a competitor and steal sales from HP (hence, it is
better to allow it to rot under the carpet in the humid basement).
Mark Buda
competitors product, then add "but, you need to consider ...[insert std
stuff about why OpenVMS Customers should move to one of the older UNIX
architectures...]"
Sounds like what Andrew H. does.. :-)
mark
Main, Kerry
Yep, if a vendor comes right out and critiques a competitive product,
then it is easy to dismiss as a simple competitive jab and loses all
credibility.
However, if one first praises the product for its well known strengths,
but then adds some fud that questions the long term certainty of that
product, it presents the image of "a wise one who really knows the
future..".
:-)
Regards
David Froble
Bob Ceculski wrote:
> Well, I wrote for the heck of it after the Inquirers article
> about maybe IBM buying VMS, and it seems they are either
> too stupid, or has "not invented here" syndrome also ...
> Sad, isn't it? They call VMS mature and suggest unix or
> $%gag#$%! os400 as an alternative when VMS runs circles
> around these and every other os out there ...
>
> Bob,
>
> Your recent e-mail query to Sam Palmisano regarding an article in the
> Inquirer.net has been forwarded to me for review and response.
<snip>
> with the various
> UNIX-based operating systems approaching similar levels of reliability
> and availability.
Basically an admission that VMS still is a leader in reliability and
availability. Other are APPROACHING!
Don't these people even understand what they write?
My IBM stock would be worth more if they weren't wasting money on such idiots!
Dave
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
T-Soft, Inc. 170 Grimplin Road Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Bill Todd
"David Froble" <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote in message
news:3EEA8B3D...@tsoft-inc.com...
> I cannot believe that I have to for once agree with boob.
Think again and perhaps you'll reconsider.
>
> Bob Ceculski wrote:
>
> > Well, I wrote for the heck of it after the Inquirers article
> > about maybe IBM buying VMS, and it seems they are either
> > too stupid, or has "not invented here" syndrome also ...
> > Sad, isn't it? They call VMS mature and suggest unix or
> > $%gag#$%! os400 as an alternative when VMS runs circles
> > around these and every other os out there ...
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Your recent e-mail query to Sam Palmisano regarding an article in the
> > Inquirer.net has been forwarded to me for review and response.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > with the various
> > UNIX-based operating systems approaching similar levels of reliability
> > and availability.
>
>
> Basically an admission that VMS still is a leader in reliability and
> availability. Other are APPROACHING!
Yup - they understand, and aren't too proud to admit it.
>
> Don't these people even understand what they write?
Better than HP does. And they also understand just how badly VMS has been
dealt with over the years by its owner - probably better than most people
here do, having become so inured to it by now (everyone else already having
given up and left). VMS is beyond any shadow of a doubt on the way out, so
much so that the idea of someone else buying it and making a go of it is
downright laughable to any objective observer (which, of course, there are
very few of around these parts). VMS is still basically good enough that
its owner could stand a chance of resurrecting it, but too far gone for
anyone else to.
>
> My IBM stock would be worth more if they weren't wasting money on such
idiots!
I guess prolonged exposure to DEC, Compaq, and now HP has completely ruined
your ability to recognize competence when you see it.
- bill
Bob Ceculski
> news:d7791aa1.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > Well, I wrote for the heck of it after the Inquirers article
> > about maybe IBM buying VMS, and it seems they are either
> > too stupid, or has "not invented here" syndrome also ...
>
> No: they seem to have a very well-informed view of the situation -
> considerably better-informed than HP's corporate leaders appear to have.
>
> Resurrecting an OS that has been neglected as long as VMS has been is not
> easy. It would make sense for HP to do so because the alternative is to
> continue bleeding existing high-margin customers (in many cases to other
> vendors) - whereas with real support they could turn the situation on its
> head. But for another vendor to try to pick up the pieces and put them back
> together would be far less realistic: some existing customers would prefer
> to remain with HP, and for the rest the inevitable turmoil of the ownership
> transition (including the question of how many of the often irreplaceable
> *people* who support VMS would be lost in the process) would raise as many
> doubts about the system's viability as cHumPaq's incompetence has.
you still can't read yet, can you? They are agreeing that VMS is
still and has been the last 25 years superior as they state the other
os's are catching up! But like a former DEC clustering engineer
who now works for unbreakable linux stated, they may be able to
come close, but noone will ever be able to 100% duplicate VMS
clustering ... VMS may have been neglected, but what can other
os's run that VMS can't? Apache proves that you can port unix or
any other code easily to VMS and benefit by it's superior clustering
and increased security and reliability ... VMS can do today what
any other platform can do and better, especially web apps ... close
only counts in horseshoes ... coming close in a computing platform
to run your business means paying a lot extra for security and other
features that you could have had buying VMS in the first place!
VMS has ruled for 25 years, and it will rule for another 25, at least
for me it will ... that means everyone else is at a competitve
disadvantage ... coming close in todays business world means
"YOU LOSE"!
Bob Ceculski
> > business. As a former employee of Digital Equipment Corporation, I
> > share your sense of pride in the quality and functionality of the
> > OpenVMS operating system. When VMS was first being developed, it truly
> > represented innovation and leadership in the industry and many newer
> > operating systems have borrowed concepts and ideas from it. However,
> > while OpenVMS continues to occupy a substantial niche market position,
> > most enterprise customers are now looking for more open operating
> > environments.
well, they certainly got that alright! Just look at the cert
counts! If that is open computing, I think I'll stick to my
good old proprietary/legacy OpenVMS ...
Bob Ceculski
> > company like IBM to acquire the asset and bring it back up to currency
> > in terms of capabilities.
and what capabilities would that be? Security? Reliability? Clustering?
That is what the unix/linus crowd is searching for ...
> > It's an unfortunate downward spiral of
> > higher maintenance fees causing more customers to defect.
our bronze support contract has been the same low price for the
last five years now ... and I guarantee we pay a ton less in
maintenance than having IBM support!
> > There are
> > several attractive substitutes to OpenVMS today, with the various
> > UNIX-based operating systems approaching similar levels of reliability
> > and availability.
Name them! I will gladly guide you to the cert site to prove just
how secure and reliable they all are ... and why would I want to
go and buy something that approaches what I already 100% have?
> > And, of course, OpenVMS's traditional competitors in
> > products like IBM's zOS and OS/400 participate in many of the same
> > market areas.
OS400? been there, done that? Can you say "NIGHTMARE"?
> > I'm sure that OpenVMS will be running many enterprise
> > applications for years to come, but the reality is that this is now a
> > mature product without a lot of growth opportunity. This doesn't make
> > an attractive business proposition.
I guess an os with security, reliability, and the best clustering
just doesn't sell today ... people evidently want garbage ...
if this is how supposedly intelligent people think out there today,
then "God help us"!
JF Mezei
> well, they certainly got that alright! Just look at the cert
> counts! If that is open computing, I think I'll stick to my
> good old proprietary/legacy OpenVMS ...
When you management comes to you and tell you that they have decided to run
SAP or some other application that is no longer available on VMS, what do you
tell them ?
I wouldn't care if VMS were proprietary *AND* all the applications one would
ever need were available on VMS. (think Windows, it is like that). But when
you are missing applications because they aren't being ported/supported on
VMS, then you need an "open system" so that you can port the freeware stuff.
But unfortunatly, whil you may be able to get stuff like XV, OSU, Mozzilla etc
to VMS, stuff like SAP still won't run on VMS.
Sure, VMS still has those medical applications. And lottery and 911 emergency
support software. But that makes it an almost "embedded device" system since
its niche is so narrow.
VMS needs to break out of its cage and prosper again. The current folks may
have succeeded in keeping VMS alive on life support against all the attacks
from palmer, curly and carly, but there is a limit.
Everhart
matches what has been getting put into MVS/zOS over the years, with
rather less tape operating system heritage. I happened to be looking over
a detailed security discussion of z/OS a couple days ago and noted
that with VMS alone, or in a couple cases VMS plus some free addins,
could do exactly the same things, mostly in exactly the same way.
The mainframe market is not one IBM would willingly jeapordize, and
if they were to be selling VMS on a merchant semiconductor ship like
Itanium, it might cannibalize the z/OS market more than anything else.
Much better for an IBM executive to "decide" that VMS needs too much
fixing up for them to use. Actually it's good market defense for their
markets, and refusal to do something which, even if seriously entertained
by them, would risk harm to one of their large markets. In a similar position
I think any responsible and informed person would be obliged to state
something similar, regardless of the state of VMS' functionality, features,
robustness, or whatnot.
If HP is unable or unwilling to make a go of VMS, sadly I don't think any
white knights are anywhere in the country round.
Glenn Everhart
David J. Dachtera
> [snip]
> if this is how supposedly intelligent people think out there today,
> then "God help us"!
Welcome to the Real World, Neo!
--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
John Smith
"Everhart" <g...@gce.com> wrote in message
news:bcg5ab$vl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
It is highly unlikely that HP would sell VMS - in either sense of the
word - to new customers or to an interested purchaser of all the
intellectual property that constitutes VMS. Why, you may ask?
Selling to new customers means , for the most part, advertising
'widely', and marketing beyond the select few that HP has deigned to
bless with their efforts.
As to advertising, HP advertising of VMS isn't going to happen now or
ever, much for the same reasons that Digital (once it got PC religion)
and Compaq had :
a) hp has bashed 'proprietary o/s'es as 'bad' for so long, that
advertising VMS makes them lose face.
b) it's better not say anything about ANY of the o/s'es you own than
to praise ANY or ALL of them.
That's why they advertise Windows instead.
As to a potential outright sale of VMS, that wouldn't happen for 2
principal reasons:
a) the hit on HP consulting and services revenues and the additional
opportunities that having your people inside the customer's door
presents, and
b) any company that would buy VMS would be looking to maximize its
return on investment. That means selling more product to more
customers, which means selling against hp, among others. Properly
advertised and marketed, VMS could make significant sales gains. HP
wouldn't want that to occur at their expense....but then again HP
doesn't seem to want that even though they currently own VMS.
Bob Koehler
> When you management comes to you and tell you that they have decided to run
> SAP or some other application that is no longer available on VMS, what do you
> tell them ?
I tell them stay away from SAP. They don't always listen, but then I
don't have to fix thier mistakes.
JF Mezei
> a) hp has bashed 'proprietary o/s'es as 'bad' for so long, that
> advertising VMS makes them lose face.
Why then did HP buy Compaq ? The only distinctive stuff Compaq brought HP was
VMS and Tandem. They are ditching Alpha and Tru64. The rest is all wintel stuff.
And by many standards, isn't HP-UX just as proprietary as VMS ? You can only
buy it from HP, right ? Does anyone else provide official support ?
> b) it's better not say anything about ANY of the o/s'es you own than
> to praise ANY or ALL of them.
Why then does HP have no problem mentioning HP-UX, Tandem NSK, Linux and
windows ? (omitting only VMS).
> customers, which means selling against hp, among others. Properly
> advertised and marketed, VMS could make significant sales gains. HP
> wouldn't want that to occur at their expense...
This is where I really don't know HP's true understanding of VMS. Does HP
believe that VMS is a "legacy" OS that is on its last days with no real
potential (or which woudl require megabucks to bring it back to life), or do
they see it as an OS with great potential... to hurt HP-UX sales ????
Bill Todd
> John Smith wrote:
> > a) hp has bashed 'proprietary o/s'es as 'bad' for so long, that
> > advertising VMS makes them lose face.
>
> Why then did HP buy Compaq ?
To give a couple of failed CEOs another couple of years of tenure while
things sorted themselves out. And perhaps to get its PC and IA32 server
business (since clearly both CEOs believed that size, rather than profits,
mattered).
- bill
John Smith
> > a) hp has bashed 'proprietary o/s'es as 'bad' for so long, that
> > advertising VMS makes them lose face.
>
> Why then did HP buy Compaq ? The only distinctive stuff Compaq
brought HP was
> VMS and Tandem. They are ditching Alpha and Tru64. The rest is all
wintel stuff.
Short answer: Consulting services and PC market share.
HP had made several attempts to bulk up in the consulting services and
failed. Compaq's consulting services division was making good coin. As
to PC's, HP figures that in acquiring Compaq they could turn the
thumbscrews tighter on the Taiwanese suppliers and extract greater
margins.
> And by many standards, isn't HP-UX just as proprietary as VMS ? You
can only
> buy it from HP, right ? Does anyone else provide official support ?
it's open - remember? Beacuase it's unix...not that awful proprietary
stuff.
> > b) it's better not say anything about ANY of the o/s'es you own
than
> > to praise ANY or ALL of them.
>
> Why then does HP have no problem mentioning HP-UX, Tandem NSK, Linux
and
> windows ? (omitting only VMS).
Speech impediment. That, or insanity runs in the family.
> > customers, which means selling against hp, among others. Properly
> > advertised and marketed, VMS could make significant sales gains.
HP
> > wouldn't want that to occur at their expense...
>
> This is where I really don't know HP's true understanding of VMS.
Does HP
> believe that VMS is a "legacy" OS that is on its last days with no
real
> potential (or which woudl require megabucks to bring it back to
life), or do
> they see it as an OS with great potential... to hurt HP-UX sales
????
The latter.
jlsue
wrote:
Hey, don't forget storage. Dec/Cpq had great storage, which HP inherited
as well.
Bill Todd
"jlsue" <jeffl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ka81fvsppgj7blgu6...@4ax.com...
True - though it's not clear just how much of that storage customer base was
specific to VMS, Tru64, and NSK (for example, most of the service revenues
were connected to VMS, Tru64, and NSK).
But HP actually does seem to be trying to develop and sell the storage
potential that it bought with Compaq, unlike most of the rest of that
acquisition. Perhaps that's because HP had a fair amount of storage
expertise on its own and can appreciate what it's got there more than in
other areas (such as operating systems, where it seems to think that
Windows, HP-UX, and Linux are or soon will be the right answers for all
needs).
- bill
JF Mezei
> > as well.
Would storage be considered a hardware or software solution if it had to be
classified as either software or hardware ?
VMS is definitely hardware, especially now that Alpha's dead.
Do storage arrays use a Digital develop OS as controller ? Has HP kept the
original Digital software, or are its new products all derived from HP-legacy
storage components ?
jlsue
wrote:
>> > Hey, don't forget storage. Dec/Cpq had great storage, which HP inherited
>> > as well.
>
>Would storage be considered a hardware or software solution if it had to be
>classified as either software or hardware ?
A little of both. The storage with associated firmware can, arguably
maybe, be considered hardware. EVM/Business Copy EVA, and DRM/Continuous
Access EVA would more likely be considered software... though that also may
be debatable.
I would probably classify most of the storage stuff as hardware.
>
>VMS is definitely hardware, especially now that Alpha's dead.
I'm not sure why you're asking about hardware vs software.... but I don't
understand this statement at all. It would seem that without Alpha, VMS is
more software-oriented (since it'll be tied to specific hardware much more
loosely now).
>
>Do storage arrays use a Digital develop OS as controller ? Has HP kept the
>original Digital software, or are its new products all derived from HP-legacy
>storage components ?
Well, the XP storage (from HP) are actually from Hitachi. The VA arrays
I'm not so sure about, and I'm not so sure how long they'll be marketed.
The NAS, MSA, HSG/MA/EMA, and EVA are all from Compaq/Digital heritage.
They are all (or almost all) using the "OS" that was developed by DEC/CPQ.
The MSA is actually using Compaq SmartArray SCSI controllers. And the NAS
is really a specialized appliance for file services, running an optimized
Windows OS. But the HSG-based and HSV-based arrays are all as they were
originally (though we are updating them, of course). I also don't know how
much longer the HSG-based product line will be marketed.
Now, the StorageWorks Management Appliance is going to be changing over
time, I predict. It's now under OpenView (i.e., the name is now OpenView
Storage Management Appliance). And I suspect that some marriage with
OpenView Storage Area Manager will be in the future.
At HP, there is a serious amount of dedication to IT Service Management
(ITSM) based on the UK's IT Information Library (ITIL). And IT Enterprise
Management products like the OpenView suite are designed with these
disciplines in mind. What's going to happen, exactly, I have no idea; but
I do expect some fully-merged products to come out that integrate any
heritage DEC/CPQ management products into this overall strategy.
And this is a good thing, imho.
JF Mezei
> I'm not sure why you're asking about hardware vs software....
If a company considers storage to be "software" and a company has decided that
its future lies with commodity hardware, then storage arrays would not be
"strategic". I asked in that context.
It would seem to me that HP is not very interested in software, except perhaps
in hardware management software.
In the wintel world, in which HP belongs, companies strive to remove any
competitive advantage to build the lowest priced commodity and
undifferentiated hardware that runs commodity software.
In the case of storage arrays, would HP want to just assemble stuff from
commodity hardware and software, or would it see it as a strategic move to
build its own software to give its commodity hardware (disk drives etc) more
value/features than competitors ?
At least with the good old proprietary digital, one always knew that Digital
would want to build a better mouse trap than others. But with HP, one never
can tell because the majority of HP wants to avoid building a better
mousetrap, prefering instead to use someone else's low end/cheap mousetrap and
putting its logo on it.
jlsue
wrote:
>jlsue wrote:
>> I'm not sure why you're asking about hardware vs software....
>
>If a company considers storage to be "software" and a company has decided that
>its future lies with commodity hardware, then storage arrays would not be
>"strategic". I asked in that context.
I don't agree with any of this. As far as I'm concerned, you're just
projecting your own unhappiness with HP into the discussion. We actively
improve and market our storage products. Period. Hardware, software, it
doesn't matter.
>
>It would seem to me that HP is not very interested in software, except perhaps
>in hardware management software.
Well, imho, we are also very interested in IT Service Management, and any
software that can help in that regard.
>
>In the wintel world, in which HP belongs, companies strive to remove any
>competitive advantage to build the lowest priced commodity and
>undifferentiated hardware that runs commodity software.
That is not entirely true for servers. We do not build higher-end servers
with strictly "commodity" hardware. We have substantial investment in,
imho, more "proprietary" firmware, drivers, controllers, etc. than what you
get in commodity. Don't confuse the cpu with the server.
>
>In the case of storage arrays, would HP want to just assemble stuff from
>commodity hardware and software, or would it see it as a strategic move to
>build its own software to give its commodity hardware (disk drives etc) more
>value/features than competitors ?
There is absolutely ZERO evidence of this anywhere. It's just your
projections again. While some of our storage hardware comes from outside
suppliers, we do quite a bit on all fronts to improve and provide value-add
to those components. And we are still very active in our own, home-grown
storage technology (e.g., MSA & EVA)
JF Mezei
> There is absolutely ZERO evidence of this anywhere. It's just your
> projections again. While some of our storage hardware comes from outside
> suppliers, we do quite a bit on all fronts to improve and provide value-add
> to those components.
The issue is that I do understand exactly what HP really means with any of
its products since I know that HP's handling of VMS does not match what HP
would like us to believe. VMS is clearly not strategic. Are storage products
strategic ? *I* have no idea because HP is too new to me and I don't trust
Carly and her gang.
Furthermore, because of the image of Carly I have, I fear that carly can
change direction on a whim and take harsh decisions in order to appear to be a
good CEO in the eyes of the wall street casino. (images of a catfight in
bikinis in a huge vat of jello between carly and martha stewart).
So I have no idea whether storage products would be seen as strategic enough
to warrant proprietary software and/or hardware or whether Carly would prefer
to ditch all her own assets and prefer to build someone else's storage
products with the HP logo on it.
In other words, HP may have great storage products, but HP is not the type of
company I would like to make long term decisions with because of the type of
leadership of the company.
Bill Todd
...
> In other words, HP may have great storage products, but HP is not the type
of
> company I would like to make long term decisions with because of the type
of
> leadership of the company.
HP actually does have some storage products which at least verge upon being
'great'. The real question is what it's doing in order to be in the same
position a few years hence. Before acquiring Compaq HP had a very
respectable storage group of its own, with the R&D area headed by John
Wilkes having produced some very interesting prototypes, some of which
became interesting products. According to an acquaintance who used to be in
it that group was savaged 2 - 3 years ago, so they aren't likely to be the
source of HP's storage leadership down the road.
Does anyone happen to know what's happening to the the Compaq storage people
these days? Richie left - and my impression is was encouraged to leave, as
part of a general cut-back in senior people to save short-term cash - before
the merger.
- bill
Greg Cagle
JF Mezei wrote:
> VMS is clearly not strategic. Are storage products
> strategic ? *I* have no idea because HP is too new to me and I don't trust
> Carly and her gang.
Make no mistake - storage is getting a LOT of attention within the
new HP.
> So I have no idea whether storage products would be seen as strategic enough
> to warrant proprietary software and/or hardware or whether Carly would prefer
> to ditch all her own assets and prefer to build someone else's storage
> products with the HP logo on it.
FYI - the XP storage arrays (pm-HP products) are relabeled Hitachi
units and are enterprise-class SAN hardware, competing directly
with EMC. They are very high end are not exactly what I would
call "commodity".
--
Greg Cagle
gregc at gregcagle dot com
Greg Cagle
> HP actually does have some storage products which at least verge upon being
> 'great'. The real question is what it's doing in order to be in the same
> position a few years hence. Before acquiring Compaq HP had a very
> respectable storage group of its own, with the R&D area headed by John
> Wilkes having produced some very interesting prototypes, some of which
> became interesting products. According to an acquaintance who used to be in
> it that group was savaged 2 - 3 years ago, so they aren't likely to be the
> source of HP's storage leadership down the road.
The people that did the pm-HP VA series arrays are pretty good IMHO and
the VA products aren't bad.
JF Mezei
> FYI - the XP storage arrays (pm-HP products) are relabeled Hitachi
> units and are enterprise-class SAN hardware, competing directly
> with EMC.
OK, so let me reformulate the question:
Is HP more likely to standardize on rebadged Hitachi (or other) products, or
is it more likely to take the Digital heritage products and develop those as
is its own products ?
Greg Cagle
> OK, so let me reformulate the question:
>
> Is HP more likely to standardize on rebadged Hitachi (or other) products, or
> is it more likely to take the Digital heritage products and develop those as
> is its own products ?
It's not clear at this point - a lot of that is still shaking out in the
storage division.
Keith Parris
> Does anyone happen to know what's happening to the the Compaq storage people
> these days? Richie left - and my impression is was encouraged to leave, as
> part of a general cut-back in senior people to save short-term cash - before
> the merger.
Compaq's storage people definitely did NOT want Richie Lary to leave
-- they even convinced him to do consulting for Compaq after he went
out on his own.
Richie had worked for DEC-classic for a very long time (he was even
involved in the original VAX/VMS architecture team). I'm not
surprised he wanted a change of pace, and a bit of rest from the
constant pressure. His technical expertise and knowledge of industry
trends and directions is certainly widely recognized in the industry.
Steve Sicola tried to fill Richie's shoes after he left, but I think
he got worn out in the attempt -- Richie is a tough act to follow.
But the Storage organization isn't dependent on any single person --
there are many brilliant people working there.
John Smith
"Keith Parris" <keithparr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf15391e.03062...@posting.google.com...
It may be time to get some of those brilliant people to take a break
from Engineering and try VMS Marketing & Advertising instead.
David J. Dachtera
...or maybe SysAdmin'ing, so they'll understand that storage controllers
that cannot be commanded from a VMS batch job are useless.