Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!emory!att!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mrlaxa.mrl.uiuc.edu!scheinin From: scheinin@mrlaxa.mrl.uiuc.edu (Alan L. Scheinine) Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp Subject: Re: SNAKE CLUSTER Keywords: Disk partitioning, OS features Message-ID: <1991May23.233708.24820@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 23 May 91 23:37:08 GMT Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Reply-To: u10534@uy.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Alan L. Scheinine) Organization: Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana Lines: 98 Originator: scheinin@mrlaxa.mrl.uiuc.edu History ------- Perry Scott writes in article 6317: > 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. Alan Scheinine (me) writes in article 6319: > 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. Mike Conca writes in article 6377: > Why not? Just because I know something that others may not > does not mean I am prohibited from using that information. > Besides, I don't think Perry was making his argument based > on any hard facts that he would be able to post assuming they > even existed. He was merely making the logical argument that > adding extra features has to cost the company somewhere, and that > in order to keep the cost down, certain trade-offs need to be made. > Disk partitions may have been one of these trade-offs. Rebuttal -------- I apologize for sloppy logic in my previous posting. The cost of implementing a feature is important. For the sake of discussion, we need a dollar amount. Anyone out there with operating system writing management experience, please offer an estimate. I see two flaws in Perry's argument. The first flaw is indicated by the phrase, "Given there is a non-zero cost ..." Perry's argument could be used to dismiss any feature. A certain level of abstraction can be useful in a discussion. But Perry's level of abstraction is stratospheric. The second flaw is the use of HP management's decision-making as a justification for a lack of partitions. Not just an explanation, but a justification. ("Apparently, partitions for workstations didn't make the cut.") Faith in HP management's decision-making must come from experience. I think it likely that many HP users have not found that faith. Mike summarizes the situation well when he writes, "Besides, I don't think Perry was making his argument based on any hard facts that he would be able to post assuming they even existed." Mike's sentence seems to be saying several things simultaneously -- I'll leave it for the reader to consider. Philosophy ---------- If HP dismisses too many features, they seem cheap w.r.t. quality. One wonders what else will be found missing if one makes the "Power Shift." The capability to make disk partitions is often found in UNIX OS's. To argue against them in HP-UX is to provide an example that HP-UX is below average w.r.t. breadth of features. However, that is not the key point. The key point is that if Perry's view of the decision-making on OS features is an accurate description of how HP management thinks, then HP is an unattractive vendor. (To paraphrase John Le Carre's George Smiley, "I've heard all the excellent reasons to do nothing, but ...") By way of contrast, the Series 700 hardware represents a large investment in development. The philosophy seems to be that: being the best will pay back in sales. Software decisions could be made with a similar philosophy. The statement that "a vendor implements those features with highest ROI," does not need to be the most important criterion. Stefan Esser stated the idea more concretely in article 6332. > And, well you know, you can cut your cost to about zero, > if you stop producing (and selling and supporting ...) > anything. We bought a 9000/835 two years ago, and this > machine was so disappointing, that I couldn't imagine to > buy any HP computer again! Reasons where low performance > (because of the HP-IB hard discs) and lots of problems with > omissions from the BSD derived kernel. A discussion based on implementation cost and the effect on sales, with dollar estimates, would elevate the discussion. I made these paragraphs separate to emphasize that this philosophy is not a replacement for facts, but rather, is a separate approach. Needed ------ Perry's argument is an HP archetype. It shuts-down further discussion. The overriding factor is said to be a market analysis beyond the review of most users. I realize that Perry cannot reveal proprietary cost figures. Yet, we must find a productive way to discuss the issue of OS features when cost is cited as a major factor. This will sound impolite, but Perry's choice of words gave me the impression that he did not have any facts concerning the decision not to implement disk partitions. I agree with Mike Conca, "Just because I know something that others may not, does not mean I am prohibited from using that information." (I was wrong.) What is needed is an honest summary -- short of revealing proprietary information. I felt that Perry's remarks were too facile and not actually based on information. Alan Scheinine, Graduate Student email: u10534@uy.ncsa.uiuc.edu Loomis Laboratory of Physics Phone: 217-333-1065 1110 West Green Street FAX: 217-333-9819 Urbana, IL 61801