Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mrlaxa.mrl.uiuc.edu!scheinin
From: scheinin@mrlaxa.mrl.uiuc.edu (Alan Scheinine)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: SNAKE CLUSTER(?)
Message-ID: <1991May21.010232.6332@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 21 May 91 01:02:32 GMT
References: <1991Apr15.204425.8682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <5570641@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana
Lines: 18

In article <5570641@hpfcdc.HP.COM> perry@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Perry Scott) writes:
>>As someone already suggested, there are multiple reasons why we may
>>want them.  You may not agree that the solution we desire is the best
>>for our situation, but that is for us to decide, not you.
>
>Given there is a non-zero cost for implementing and supporting these
>features, are you willing to pay more for an HP system with partitions
>on it ?  In a commodities market like Un*x, a vendor implements those
>features with highest ROI.  That means either high returns in terms of
>leveraging sales and/or low investment in terms of R&D and support.
>Apparently, partitions for workstations didn't make the cut.
>
>Perry Scott

  Do not, I repeat, do not, make arguments based on cost vs. benefit
  without providing accurate figures on costs.  If the cost to HP of
  implementing a feature is proprietary, then it cannot be used as
  a basis for an argument in a discussion.