thompson@PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM (John Thompson) (05/02/91)
It seems to be time again. What are thoughts on sending HP yet another letter. Topics that seem to need attention are (as I see it) -- 1) The DN10000s death. Stated bluntly, we (owners of dn10ks) now have systems that are slower than current technology, have no upgrade path, are piecewise incompatible with other systems (except disks and monitor), will not get sufficient X-windows support, and are essentially expensive, lame, ducks. 2) Domain/OS support. Again bluntly, we are being told that the newest, latest, greatest hardware that HP has will not run with our current systems, and that to use it, we'll need to learn YAP/OS (YetAnotherProprietary/OS) that will be going away in about a year (when OSF becomes stable). 3) OSF. We're being told on the one hand that OSF is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but that it won't have many of the reasons we bought Apollo in the first place! Examples are file-typing, type-managers, PADs, mailbox calls, truly transparent networking, the network-is-the-computer concept. Instead, we're being told that maybe we can get what we're giving up in a few years, that HP is unwilling to make their offering better than the others because they might be perceived as 'less standard' (i.e. better), and that we didn't really want to use Domain/OS features anyway. 4) Software Support. All too often, we hear (after 6 months to a year) that the problem we reported is (A) not a problem, (B) scheduled to be fixed "in a future release" (i.e. at our whim), or (C) insufficiently documented. Certainly there are occasions for all three of those responses, but they occur too often, and (C) is especially hard to reply to after a year. I'm sure there are other topics. What I'd like to offer is this: I'll act as a clearing-house for gripes, grumbles, and other topics for write-up. I'll write up a merged list of subjects for review, and post it here. I'll farm out topics to the suggestors, and/or write the topics up myself. I'll post the 1st-draft letter here, and we can hack it apart again. I'll make edits and repost a 2nd- draft letter, and take final criticisms. I'll post an edited final draft for perusal, and solicit signatures for it (other clearinghouses for the signatures (as before) would be especially helpful). Finally, I'll post and send US-nail the letter to HP. (Alternatively, I'll sit back and offer comments if someone else wants to do all of the above. :-) Please send TOPICS to me, and not to the newsgroup. Please send COMMENTS on the subject of (not) sending to the newsgroup. If I get TOPICS, and the concensus of COMMENTS is to axe the letter, I'll simply post a merging of TOPICS as a single, final, posting to this group. -- 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.
rtp1@quads.uchicago.edu (raymond thomas pierrehumbert) (05/02/91)
I think this letter is a good idea. If you go ahead with it, I will send a compendium of my gripes about the DN10k, and how HP has turned a promising machine into a white elephant. For me, Domain is irrelevant, as I have not third party software, and just need cycles for calculations, so it is the float performance of the box that counts. I can see the importance of the Domain support for other users, though.
schuh@demon.siemens.com (Christian Schuh) (05/03/91)
In article: <9105011759.AA02617@pan.ssec.honeywell.com> John Thompson writes: >What are thoughts on sending HP yet another letter. Topics that seem >to need attention are (as I see it) -- I think you are right - a net letter seems necessary. >1) The DN10000s death. Stated bluntly, we (owners of dn10ks) now have systems > that are slower than current technology, have no upgrade path, are piecewise > incompatible with other systems (except disks and monitor), will not get > sufficient X-windows support, and are essentially expensive, lame, ducks. Exactly! >2) Domain/OS support. Again bluntly, we are being told that the newest, latest, > greatest hardware that HP has will not run with our current systems, and that > to use it, we'll need to learn YAP/OS (YetAnotherProprietary/OS) that will be > going away in about a year (when OSF becomes stable). I still think Domain/OS should have been ported to HP-PA RISC though. It was ported from m68k to a88k, so why not for HP-PA?. If they had started early enough, they probably would have a running version for the 700 Series now. But the way things are now, I agree with your opinion, that it is too late. It might make more sense to pressure for a quicker release of OSF/1 and the immediate adition of Domain/OS features. >3) OSF. We're being told on the one hand that OSF is the greatest thing since > sliced bread, but that it won't have many of the reasons we bought Apollo in > the first place! Examples are file-typing, type-managers, PADs, mailbox calls, > truly transparent networking, the network-is-the-computer concept. Instead, > we're being told that maybe we can get what we're giving up in a few years, > that HP is unwilling to make their offering better than the others because they > might be perceived as 'less standard' (i.e. better), and that we didn't really > want to use Domain/OS features anyway. See above. Release OSF/1 together with the Series 700, and start adding Domain- OS features earlier than planned. >I'm sure there are other topics. What I'd like to offer is this: I'll act as a >clearing-house for gripes, grumbles, and other topics for write-up. I'll write >up a merged list of subjects for review, and post it here. I'll farm out topics Thanks for your offer to do all this, your efforts are highly appreciated. >John Thompson (I'M ENGAGED!!!!) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --> Congratulations! Chris