Re: HP's commitment to Integrity Servers based on the Itanium 2

From: William Webb (william.w.webb_at_gmail.com)
Date: 08/24/05 

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:59:39 -0400

On 8/23/05, Bill Todd <billtodd@metrocast.net> wrote:
> susan_skonetski@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Dear Newsgroup,
> >
> > This week there has been a lot of FUD around about HP and Intel and the
> > commitment to the Itanium 2 architecture.
>
> That is of course at least technically correct, in the sense that 'fear,
> uncertainty, and doubt' have indeed been involved.
>
> What would be incorrect would be to assert that there was no legitimate
> reason for having raised such doubts, so I hope you're not implying that.
>
> >
> > Here is two web sites you might find useful. Please keep in mind that
> > these are not specific to any one organization.
> >
> > http://www.hp.com/go/therealstory
> > This site contains "The Real Story about Integrity Servers"
> >
> > http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/testimonials/index.html
> > This site contains customer quotes, case studies and press releases.
> >
> > I thought this might be more useful to you than gossip, rumors and
> > conjecture.
>
> Well, that's a difficult call: are clear statements of direction from
> an organization with a history of flagrant mendacity more, or less,
> useful than (possibly informed) speculation?
>
> Both probably have their uses, I suspect.
>
> We did receive yet another internal communication today
> > restating our commitment to this platform. I know its not as
> > interesting nor does it generate as much conversation however it is the
> > reality.
>
> Ah, yes - reality, or at least current reality, or if not even that at
> least *public* reality.
>
> Public reality, you'll recall, was embodied in Compaq's "Commitment to
> Alpha" letter - right up until that public reality was turned on its
> head in a single day (though interestingly enough nobody bothered to
> remove the letter for another month or more).
>
> Since you've seen fit to refer to these current 'commitments', it only
> seems appropriate to revisit those of the past - see below.
>
> - bill
>
<snip>

Aren't you people ashamed?

Let me say this:

Of course, Sue Skonetski is going to speak the HP line, because *that's her job*

That having been said, all who have read here for any length of time know that:

Sue Skonetski does not spout lies or BS..

And I personally take offense that you, Bill would fling such dung
back in her direction.

She doesn't deserve getting flamed for actions of others that are
beyond her control.

I refer you all back to what I said in the 2 cents thread.
 
All this traffic began because of unsubstantiated and unsourced rumors!

I've got a special on heavy duty tinfoil, folks, in the wide rolls.

At some point, you've got to let the past be the past and live in the now.

That was an action taken by a company that ceased to be post-merger.

Would you beat up IBM for a decision made back in the 1930s by the
Tabulating Machine
Company?

That's what you're doing.

Bitching about decisions made by Carly and the board.
Bitching about decisions made by Capellas and the board.
Bitching about decisions made by GQ Bob and the board..
Bitching about decisions made by Ken Olsen and the board..

In 2005.

Give it a freakin' rest.

This makes you sound as crazy as jf does when he goes off another of
his rants based on his "Rain Man" like fixation with Stallard's
initial post-merger statement.

It's small wonder that most of the technical traffic has disappeared
from c.o.v/Info-VAX and gone to openvms.org and ITRC.

WWWebb
  

-- 
NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related
correspondence.
All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for
services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at
http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/

Relevant Pages