Re: Intel's had Dirty Bombs Anthrax and everything! (Was: Re: HP World: Why Alpha's Omega Makes Sense)

From: Bill Todd (billtodd_at_metrocast.net)
Date: 07/26/03 

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:25:50 -0400

"jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cbb3ivg2tfbquv39ustoo7oojqg55sel4t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:27:52 -0400, "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >"jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:n6fthvkgjj86fl5iuac20dqqab9m1tk3he@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:10:44 -0400, "Bill Todd"
<billtodd@metrocast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"jlsue" <jefflsxxxz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:h5aghvkavsukjcto77hkv3qsd1ciu3g7le@4ax.com...
> >> ry.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Right. Somehow you feel they owe you an apology.(???)
> >> >
> >> >No, I feel they owe those who made decisions based upon their specific
> >and
> >> >unequivocal 'commitments to Alpha' an apology.
> >>
> >> You can only claim this "requirement" for yourself.
> >
> >What part of "I feel that..." do you find difficult to understand?
>
> The part where you start saying the rest of "those who made decisions
based
> upon ...". That's the part where you transfer your own unhappiness onto
> the rest of the world.

Not at all: I'm happy to let the rest of the world speak for itself. And
enough of them have voiced their displeasure to make me entirely comfortable
with my assertion that an apology is long overdue.

>
> I'm working with many, many customers, and though nobody was entirely
happy
> about this, almost all have moved on.

Many to other vendors - though you're probably not 'working with' those
particular people any more.

>
> >
> > You don't get to
> >> decide whether the way they did it was satisfactory for most of their
> >> customers.
> >
> >But I *do* get to decide whether I think the behavior is worth making
clear
> >to people who might be interested in or affected by it - so that they can
> >decide for themselves.
>
> Making predictions about supposed future behavior is nothing but FUD, no
> matter how you like to couch it.

'Fear, uncertainty, and doubt' is *precisely* the attitude with which
cHumPaq should be approached. If you don't find Santayana's sentiment
persuasive, how about the more colloquial "Fool me once, shame on you; fool
me twice, shame on me" proverb that David just mentioned?

Claiming that past behavior should not be considered in dealing with a
company is just plain stupid. Such a claim coming from an employee of that
company might be considered something even less admirable.

>
> >
> > Again, in the end, if you (or any other specific customer) are
> >> not satisfied, you are fully able to vote with your feet. At that
point
> >> you have no other reason to continue this ranting, though, because
you've
> >> made your decision on how to deal with it.
> >
> >Au contraire: that would be a very self-centered attitude to take (sort
of
> >like driving by an accident because it didn't affect me personally). I
> >don't know about you, but when I see something dramatically wrong I'm
often
> >motivated to try to correct it even if it doesn't really affect me
> >personally - and this *is* my 'decision on how to deal with it'.
>
> Ah, so now you're saving the world from DEC/CPQ/HPQ? I know that's not
> what you're really saying,

That is *precisely* what I'm saying - both because I think it's considerate
to make sure newcomers are warned what they might expect, and because I
believe that some kinds of behavior should not be forgiven or forgotten
until some reasonable measure of restitution and atonement has occurred.

 but you're just trying to rationalize continued
> harrassment based on some past dissapointment.
>
> It would be different if you stated your case, and then took a
wait-and-see
> attitude.

'Wait and see' and 'hope for the best' were the hallmarks of the approach
that led to disappointment after disappointment. Some people just lie down
and become accustomed to that kind of treatment (see 'Stockholm syndrome'
for an explanation of why some actually may even start defending it); others
eventually get sufficiently fed up that they take a more activist stance.

  And if you're proved to be right, I'd even give you the "I told
> you so".

I don't choose to wait around to be proved right yet again: I choose to try
to force a different outcome.

>
> It's the constant pounding, and using that to drive home that nobody can
be
> trusted anymore, so why try,

I've never claimed that *nobody* could be trusted, just cHumPaq.

> that makes the effort so much waste.

If *I* thought it were a waste, I wouldn't waste my time on it. The fact
that the Alphacide appears to have cost cHumPaq a *net* loss in profit of
hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and the likelihood that this loss
would have been far less if they had been allowed to lead their customers
like sheep without any opposition, makes me feel that the effort has been
worthwhile.

  This is
> just my opinion, I'm not trying to brow-beat you with it. But trust that
> there are many, many people working to improve on the past.

There have *always* been many, many good people working to improve VMS (and
before mid-to-late 2001 Tru64 and Alpha as well). And (except briefly under
Pfeiffer) it hasn't made a damn bit of difference to anything but technical
quality for close to a decade, because the people who make *decisions* in
the company weren't among them (and still aren't).

  Why detract
> from their efforts before you see if they'll be successful?

Because they've had a decade to be successful already, and because the same
kinds of scumbags are still in charge.

>
>
> >>
> >> Yeah, right. They decide that the direction the company should go to
meet
> >> business goals, and they incur the risks to take it there. Hey, it's
> >their
> >> responsibility to keep the company profitable, if they don't do it,
it's
> >> their job on the line. Armchair refs need not apply.
> >
> >I really don't have any problem with that characterization, if it will
get
> >people to stop complaining about my efforts to make sure that the risks
they
> >took by throwing away a business with immense potential profit, breaking
> >commitments in the process, and then lying about it have appropriate
> >consequences. Treachery, perfidy, and/or incompetence *should* have
> >consequences, after all: that's the free-market philosophy in action.
>
> First of all, your point is based on lots of conjecture, one-sided
> information, and a complete rejection of all counter arguments. With such
> closed-mindedness, how do you really think this activity is helping?
>
> And the "consequences" that would befall them in this free-market is a
> significant loss of customers. That hasn't happened, so maybe, just
maybe,
> there's more to the story.

Let's see: VMS systems went from $4 billion in annual revenue (June, 2000
statement by Rich Marcello, repeated in a March, 2001 slide presentation
*well* after the dot-com boom started going bust - and the limited
information in the quarterly reports from Compaq corroborated VMS's
resilience in the face of that bust right up to the Alphacide) to $2 billion
in annual revenue (December, 2001 figure in a Compaq response to a Gartner
comment). And that's for a system that *was* planned to be ported to
Itanic, so one can hardly imagine that Tru64 revenues ($3 billion annually
prior to the Alphacide) did any better.

Even recently, VMS system revenues were reportedly stated by Mark Gorham to
be only $2.5 - $3 billion, with $500 million annual profit (vs. the $800
million Marcello quoted). And Mark is hardly likely to have *under*stated
the figures.

No 'significant loss of customers'? Bull***. When you consider how large
a percentage of the remaining system revenue likely came from on-going
service agreements for equipment no one was about to throw away before it
required an upgrade rather than new-equipment purchases, the loss becomes
even more staggering.

- bill