thompson@PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM (John Thompson) (05/10/91)
Well, here's the first draft. Originally, I had intended to try and farm out
the writing, but since there were no other topics that came up, and because
no one out-and-out volunteered, I decided to take my experience, and the
comments received from the net, and just get a first draft out.
As Jim Richardson did in USENET LETTER 1, I have prefaced comments with a set
of bangs (!!). These are not intended to be part of the letter, but should
instead get the juices flowing for comments and edits. I would like to get a
second draft made of this ASAP, since time is very much of the essense with
the hardware and software decisions. I won't put a deadline on that, but
please act quickly. (So you don't forget, send before midnight tonight! :-)
When sending edits, please send enough context to make it clear. When sending
comments, please do the same. When sending opinions, please be clear.
Please do _NOT_ include the entire draft in mass postings. The last thing we
need is to have everybody listing out the whole draft, and posting it back on
the net. :-(
-- jt --
John Thompson (I'M ENGAGED!!!!)
Honeywell, SSEC
Plymouth, MN 55441
thompson@pan.ssec.honeywell.com (129.30.60.41)
A pessimist sees the tunnel.
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel.
The realist sees the tunnel, the light at the end of the tunnel,
and realizes that it's an oncoming train.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<draft start>
OPEN LETTER TO HP/APOLLO: DRAFT #1
HEWLETT-PACKARD, AND THE SLAYING OF IT'S APOLLO ACQUISITION
Background:
-----------
When Hewlett-Packard and Apollo Computers merged in mid-1989, there were
many people who voiced doubts about the continued viability of the Apollo
CISC and RISC platforms. HP/Apollo made many presentations and claims that,
in essense, stated that there would be continued, long-term support for
Domain/OS on current and future "merged" platforms, and that there would be
second generation RISC platforms for both PRISM and PA-RISC, before a merged
RISC platform (running Domain/OS, HP-UX, and OSF) was released in 1992/93.
It appears, with the 9000/700 series announcement, and the cancellation of
PRISM-2, that not only is the DN10000 system obsolete, but that HP has
decided to use this as an opportunity to kill Domain/OS as well.
Recent entries in the comp.sys.apollo USENET newsgroup have, as usual,
covered a vast and varied territory. Three issues have come up that we would
specifically like you (HP) to reply on. These topics are all related to the
Apollo side of HP/Apollo's company, and bring added doubts on the commitment
that HP has to the customers they gained through the acquisition of Apollo
Computers.
Topic 1 : The future of the DN10000 - Problems
----------------------------------------------
Until recently, most owners of dn10000 systems have been assured that there
would be ongoing upgrades to the series. When it was first introduced, Apollo
was planning on upgrades that would double the performance of the system every
few years. This, in addition to the (at the time) phenomenal performance of
the dn10000 prompted many of us to purchase the systems. Recent announcements
by third-party software vendors concerning their future support of the PRISM
platform made us nervous, but still HP/Apollo was promising the PRISM-2 cpu
upgrade, that would bring the systems back in line as a high-end compute
server. Eventually, though, these assurances turned sour, and recently, HP
announced that, no, there would not be a PRISM-2 upgrade, leaving many of us
holding an expensive white elephant.
!! I have some articles, but am not certain whether we should directly quote
!! or not. In addition, if we _should_ quote, I would like to have you send
!! in relevent ones. When sending them in, please include the entire quote
!! plus header and trailer context, and make SURE to include the quoted
!! person and the source (including issue / date). If the item is too long,
!! please include the person, source, and an _ACCURATE_ paraphrase.
Although the dn10000 series was released almost three years ago, and can
therefore be called a mature (if not obsolete) technology, many of the
systems in place are only less than two years old. Depreciating a one
to four hundred thousand dollar investment in this length of time is not
acceptable. Cutting off the PRISM upgrades would have been similar to
Motorola deciding not to develop a 68010 chip, or HP deciding to throw out
PA-RISC after one generation.
We fully realize that HP needs to merge their two RISC lines, just as they
have (very successfully) merged the CISC lines with the 9000/400 series
nodes. However, a merger of lines implies that both original products will
contribute, and that the end product will be a viable replacement or upgrade
to either line. This is not the case with the dn10000 and the 700 series
lines. The current incarnation of the 700 series system can not run in the
Apollo Token Ring and cannot execute code written for the dn10000 even
after recompilation (unless it was code that would run on any
"vanilla-Unix" type platform. It is, bluntly, a Hewlett-Packard node, and
not an HP/Apollo node, as advertised.
Topic 1 : the future of the DN10000 - Solutions
-----------------------------------------------
At minimum, we need to have a replacement path provided to move from the
DN10000 systems to the series 700 machines. If HP/Apollo were to offer
an free, equivalent-power upgrade to its DN10000 customers, at least some of
us would be able to transition from one to the other. A better plan
would be for HP/Apollo to make an PA-RISC cpu board for the current
DN1000 systems, so that we can still utilize the disks, memory, and
other peripherals that are on our current systems. This would not satisfy
all of our needs, but would provide a minimum response to our needs.
!! Any more thoughts??
Topic 2 : Support of Domain/OS - Problems
-----------------------------------------
Even more critical to our needs than a particular hardware platform is a
reliable, supported operating system. When the dn10000 was introduced, there
were concerns about the transparency possible between Domain/OS on the RISC
and on the CISC platforms. Apollo did a very impressive job of making the
differences minimal. A simple recompilation was almost always the only thing
that needed to be done in order to port to the "different" platform. The
benefits from this transparency are obvious -- programs written for the
CISC nodes would be ready to run almost immediately, and show a
tremendous increase in performance; the current filesystems could be
accessed in a transparent, logical, and consistent manner; client-server
programs that were non-portable from Domain/OS could exchange information
just as easily between the CISC and RISC platforms as they did had before in
a CISC - CISC exchange.
The 700 series boxes, though, will not support Domain/OS. In fact, the
initial release is not even supporting OSF. Instead, HP's decision has been
to support only HP-UX as an alternative. This means that, until OSF becomes
stable, HP expects us to learn another proprietary O/S that will not interact
with Domain/OS better than any other flavor of Unix, and that will be going
away when OSF does become stable. The learning-curve for the O/S, plus the
lack of an acceptable level of interaction between O/S types, make this
solution almost impossible to accept.
Topic 2 : Support of Domain/OS - Solutions
------------------------------------------
Ideally, we need to have the 700 series boxes run Domain/OS. That HP could
decide not to port Domain/OS to the new RISC architecture indicates an
extreme indifference to the needs of their Apollo customers. According to
rumors floating around, HP/Apollo engineers have already ported at least part
of Domain/OS to the PA-RISC architecture. If this is true, a dedicated,
concerted effort might still be able to produce a Domain/OS release that
would allow us to transition to the next generation RISC platforms, either as
the 700 series or as cpu upgrades to the current dn10000 systems.
!! Can anyone confirm/refute this rumour?
Failing this, we need to have modifications made to either or both of
Domain/OS and HP-UX so that they can interoperate acceptibly. A minimal
level of interoperability would include the registry services, proper
file-sharing (NFS is not acceptable to a Domain/OS user), and at least
limited inter-system status information (the Unix remote shell 'rsh' is also
not acceptable to a Domain/OS user).
!! I don't know if this is even feasible, but I don't want to offer only
!! one solution whenever we can come up with alternatives.
Topic 3 : The transition to OSF - Problems
------------------------------------------
OSF is being touted by HP/Apollo (and admittedly by others as well) as being
the latest, greatest, standardest operating system to come around. HP is
also saying that it will have all the nice features that make us like
Domain/OS so much. Unfortunately, when pressed, it comes out that OSF will
not have many of the Domain-isms that endeared Apollo to us in the first
place, and that kept us with Apollo all this time. These include (but are
certainly not limited to) file-typing, user-definable filetypes, PADs, truly
transparent file systems, "automagic" networking, and the Apollo display
manager (with all it's capabilities).
!! What do _you_ like??
It even seems that HP representatives don't know what they will be taking
away. They have been listed as saying that Domain/OS users will feel right
at home with OSF, because they'll find many of the Domain tools, like Task
Broker. Apparently, he did not know (or care) that Task Broker is an HP-UX
tool that has been ported to Domain/OS, not a true Domain tool. If it were
a Domain tool, it would certainly not need to provide for file transfer to
the remote system, since all files are accessible to any Domain/OS node.
!! Any OSF guinea pigs out there want to comment?
!! Any other relevent problems?
Topic 3 : The transition to OSF - Solutions
-------------------------------------------
Most of us have come to the conclusion that we will need to transition to
OSF. HP/Apollo could ease this transition by providing a Domain/OS release
in the near future that would allow interaction with OSF. Coupled with a
stable OSF release on the 700 series, this might even provide an acceptible
alternative to porting Domain/OS to the PA-RISC platform. If full
interaction is not possible in the immediate future, an incremental
implementation starting with registry and file services would allow some of
us to begin transitioning, and would provide assurance to the rest of us that
we will not be abandoned.
!! What features (ordered most important to least) do you need?
Extensions to the OSF solution are essential to the success of HP/Apollo.
Unless OSF requires a specific window manager, HP/Apollo should provide
support for the Apollo Display Manager as at least an alternate manager. If
OSF does require a specific manager, then HP/Apollo needs to provide
an equivalent tool to handle the essential portions of the DM.
!! What portions do we want to deem 'essential'?
The current HP/Apollo justification for not augmenting OSF's abilities is
that "standard is better" is unacceptable. It is the capabilities of the
machine, and the user environment, that are most important in making
purchases. Providing a set of tools that is no better than Dec's or IBM's
will provide no incentive to stay with HP/Apollo. Providing full
interoperability with other OSF machines, while providing added capability
when interfaced with other HP/Apollo systems, and/or providing additional
tools in HP/Apollo's OSF offering will give us the justification we need.
Standards are essential, but they cannot be used as an excuse for not
providing acceptable tools.
!! Anything else to add?
Disclaimer
----------
This document was written with input from numerous people. While all
signatories support its aims and general thrust, not everyone is necessarily
in complete agreement on the details of all points. The views expressed are
those of individuals, and do not in general represent official policy of the
institutions or companies of which the signatories are members. (This
should not be taken as a license to discount those views, however: in the
long run the individual views of computer users and system managers tend to
affect or even determine institutional computing policy and purchasing
decisions.)
!! (Yes, I grabbed this almost verbatim from the first USENET letter.)
Conclusion
----------
!! Need a snappy conclusion. It should drive home the point that, if Apollo
!! customers have to go HP-UX, or can't transition smoothly (jumping from one
!! moving train to another is not 'smoothly'), that we will start from
!! scratch in our workstation vendor search. Without Domain/OS (or
!! interoperabilty with Domain/OS), HP's machines are just like anyone elses.
We hope that Hewlett-Packard will accept this critique in the same positive
spirit with which we have prepared it, and will act quickly to fulfill our
three requests. Individual replies are not expected: as we have used
the USENET as a public forum for the gathering of this information, we
would we enjoy hearing HP/Apollo's response in this group.
!! Again, almost verbatim from USENET LETTER 1.
Signatories
-----------
!! No, don't send 'em yet, but get ready. Right now, send EDITS to the
!! letter!!!
<End of draft>tjohn@GUMBY.CFSMO.HONEYWELL.COM ("Tony John") (05/10/91)
These are just some thoughts and opinions that I have on John's draft letter to HP. (John, please feel free to use whatever you need.) Why do I get the feeling that in the time since HP purchased Apollo, HP management still doesn't understand what they bought. It's really becoming apparent that HP is becoming another one of those U.S. companies that doesn't listen to their customers, and maybe don't even know who there customers are. Have you noticed that when the first USENET letter went out, it looked like HP management was going to listen to us and try to meet our needs on support. Now it looks like HP has gone back to ignoring us again. (Why else would we be working on another letter?) man What ever happened to the ftp/archive site that HP said they were going to have? Does anyone in the HP management monitor this group anymore? It sure doesn't look like it. Under Topic #1: John, I think you meant a Motorola 68040 not a 68010. We have a DN10000 at Commercial Flight Systems. We use it to run Mentor Graphics digital simulations. Mentor has already said that they will not support the DN10000 with their next SW release V8.0. They have told us that we will be "taken care of to our satisfaction" but when we try to pin them down on how they will take care of us, they tap dance around the problem. I feel that HP needs to take definite, positive action on the future of the DN10000 because Mentor doesn't have any idea of what to do. Under Topic #2: When I was still working for Honeywell Military Avionics Division, we purchased a couple of HP-UX 400t's for Mechanical CAE. One of the items that influenced our decision to go with HP workstations instead of Sun was that the local HP office told us that they would help us get Domain/OS and HP-UX to talk to each other. Well HP, MAvD is still waiting for that help. HP hasn't lifted a finger to do anything. HP-VUE is a nice product. Personnaly, I like Motif better than the DM on Apollo because I still get to use DM shells and the DM editor. I also like using an xterm window when I need to login to remote systems. If DM shells and a DM-like editor were added to HP-VUE, I think HP would have an excellent GUI product that would beat the pants off of the competition. Under Topic #3: HP saying that the "standard is better" is a bunch of bulls___. Look what IBM and Sun did. DOS and NFS are so-called "standards" because users saw what they liked and the two companies promoted the hell out of the products saying they were "standard". Why can't HP say the same thing? They're almost as big as IBM and bigger than Sun, they ought to be able to promote a product or did they cut the advertising budget, or are they afraid to step on some toes? The reason we purchase a certain workstation and application software is that it fits our design process, and to help us design and produce a product faster, better, and cheaper than the competition. All we want to do is get the job done. When you stop listening to your customer, you start losing market share, and we look to other vendors for help. This is what happened to Apollo. This is also what HP is doing, not listening to their customers, and I bet they're starting to lose purchase contracts to their competitors who have been bit by HP or Apollo before. ===================================================================== Tony John Honeywell Commercial Flight Systems 612-785-4256 MN51-1320 8840 Evergreen Blvd. tjohn@gumby.cfsmo.honeywell.com Coon Rapids, MN 55433 My opinions are mine. Honeywell isn't interested in them, and they wouldn't know what to do with them anyway. =====================================================================