Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM!thompson From: thompson@PAN.SSEC.HONEYWELL.COM (John Thompson) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo Subject: re: Open Letter Response Message-ID: <9106172251.AA05357@pan.ssec.honeywell.com> Date: 17 Jun 91 22:51:48 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 144 Well, HP/Apollo responded (if you can call it that). Since it appears that they did not send to the comp.sys.apollo mailing list, I am assuming that it did not get posted there, and so I'm including it in full. My comments come after it. > TO: Hewlett-Packard Domain Customers > FROM: Hewlett-Packard Company > SUBJ: Response to May 20, 1991 Open Letter > DATE: June 14, 1991 > _________________________________________________________________ > > Thank you for your recent letter concerning some of HP's business > strategies. Clearly, you invested a great deal of time and effort > in the letter and your thoughtful presentation of problems and > potential solutions is greatly appreciated. > > We think that input from our customers is invaluable when it comes > to making the best possible business decisions. As you might > already be aware, the primary channel for this communication is > and has been the Apollo Domain User Society (ADUS) of which there are > nearly 7,000 members worldwide. > > We have chosen to focus our dialogue through this organization. > > ADUS conferences draw members from all over the world. The next > ADUS conference will be held Aug. 4-8 in San Diego and will address all > of the issues that were raised in your letter. The conference > provides ADUS members with the forum to exchange ideas > with each other and with HP's technology experts. > > HP also works closely with the ADUS Board of Directors > on an on-going basis to discuss members' concerns and ideas. > The conference and other communication vehicles, such as the ADUS > Ring Newsletter, will continue to be used to keep members up to date > on workstation issues. > > The specific issues you raised will be addressed as follows: > > o The future of the Apollo DN10000 will be addressed at management > strategy presentations and roundtables; > > o Support of Domain/OS will be addressed at a Domain/OS 10.4 forum; > > o HP OS migration to OSF/1 will be addressed at the OSF/1 features > update session; > > In addition, during the four-day conference we will cover related topics > at breakout technical sessions, tutorials and at an R&D management panel > Q&A. These topics will include: > > o Strategy on Motorola and PA-RISC; > > o System administration; > > o NewWave Computing; > > o New language technologies; > > o Peripherals; > > o Networks, and > > o Graphics. > > We encourage you to attend the ADUS Conference or, at the very least, > become an active member of the ADUS community. For information about > how to join ADUS, please contact your local HP Sales Representative or > call Carol Relph at HP in Chelmsford, Mass., at (508) 256-6600, > extension 7646. > > Sincerely, > > Mark E. Tolliver > Marketing Manager > Hewlett-Packard Workstation Systems Division I got an early copy of this letter from Jack Novia, and had a talk with him and with Anita Reiner on what I thought of it. Suffice it to say that I don't think much of this response. Anita mentioned that they might be coming out with an updated response in a while, but said that getting a new 'official' HP response would not be quick (true enough). What I told Jack and Anita: o This non-response is not satisfactory. Whether true or not, it sounds like HP/Apollo is putting us off for a month and a half. All of the issues we brought up are time-critical. If HP/Apollo goes along their merry way, and then gets users complaining, they can (will?) say that at this point, it's too late to change anything. This is already true for Domain/OS on the PA-RISC architecture. Whether it _IS_ do-able or not, it _WAS_ too late when we found out about it to get HP to start the port -- the timeframe didn't make sense any more. o Although I agree that ADUS is a good funnel-point for user input, I do not agree that it should be the only one. Using the same argument, HP could refuse to accept problem reports unless a lot of users all complained. They have the technical support line because there are problems that are found by individual users/companies that need to be dealt with. o It is much easier for me to attend USENET than it is to attend ADUS. In this time of tight budgets, travel to conferences gets axed easily. I can almost certainly reach more people via USENET, as well. (In addition, would ADUS be able to handle large membership numbers (10X current) and large attendences at conferences?) o ADUS has major meetings twice per year. Too often, we find out about specific changes in press releases (or between the lines of those releases) that don't coincide with conferences. ADUS conferences are fine for presenting broad, sweeping topics, but the specifics are often ironed out afterward. If those specific implementation details do not match what we as ADUS users expect, then waht are we to do? o The ADUS Ring is published monthly (I think), and so, with a good, fast, turnaround, might be able to address a topic in 3 months. A more likely timeframe is 4 to 6 months. By that time, the entire playing field can be different. There needs to be a quick-action interface as well. o If we don't have any idea what HP/Apollo's position is on the three topics from the letter, then the best we can give to an ADUS presentation is a knee-jerk, gut-feeling opinion. It may be that that knee-jerk is wrong. If it's wrong, but we convince HP/Apollo to change their plans, we all lose. If it's right, and we fail to convince HP/Apollo to change their plans because of insufficient support, then we lose, and HP loses afterward. o The VERY LEAST we need is to have HP/Apollo's initial position on these issues. I think that it's important enough and (now) current enough that they should be able to give expected dates for the support and inter- operability issues. I'd hope that they'd have a (relatively) complete understanding concerning the DN10000 future. The fuzzy, hand-waving, rosy-timeframe view presented in the Domain/OS white paper is not good enough. We need to know 'what.' We need to know 'when.' We need to know 'how.' We need to know 'why.' o We took the time to write the letter because we wanted to hear a response. All this reply is is rhetoric. -- jt -- John Thompson Honeywell, SSEC Plymouth, MN 55441 thompson@pan.ssec.honeywell.com When in danger, when in doubt -- run in circles, scream and shout.