🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan11.151743.13677@rdg.dec.com>, sybertz@brsux0.bro.dec.com (Sybertz Marc) writes:
> 
> >	A vendor's customers don't care about lack of resources. They can
> >	-----------------------------------------------------------------
> >	buy from someone who doesn't have that problem.
> >	-----------------------------------------------
> 
> Do you know a company in the world which develops everything the same day ???
> Everyone puts priorities ... and it is not a question of lack of resources,
> it is a question of business practices.
> 
  Sybertz, I think that you missed the point that Marcus was trying to make
  (or maybe I am).  Of course every company - every organized human effort, for
  that matter - has a certain amount of resources and must make hard decisions
  how to expend them.  BUT having made its decisions, it must go with them and
  sell the resulting products to those customers that want them.  If a customer
  wants something else, he/she could care less WHY you don't have it, or are
  late in delivering it, or have promised it and then reneged: he/she will go
  to a vendor who has what he/she needs.

  From where I sit, DEC's recent actions make it "obvious" to me that it is
  abandoning the MIPS platform and has put top priority on the ALPHA/VMS plat-
  form for the time being.  Further, it has subdivided remaining resources
  for ALPHA system software development between OSF/1 and NT.  Now, you are,
  of course, free to dispute these assumptions if you want, but if you do,
  please point out to me, through ACTUAL product releases and announcements
  and research/development facility closing/openings/expansions, how I am 
  wrong.  If you do so, please try to be thorough.

  To return to Marcus's point:  I have a substantial ("substantial" for our
  organization) investment in DEC MIPS products.  I need something quite a 
  bit faster than the DEC 5000/240 to run an application and I need a system
  that will do so, running a specific commercial software package, TODAY.  DEC
  doesn't have anything available.  I could care less that this is due to 
  "lack of resources", resources having gone to ALPHA/VMS/OSF1/NT and taken
  away from MIPS/ULTRIX. Other vendors have what I need and I am thus talking
  to them. 

  After all, if I went to DEC and told it that I needed a $400,000
  system but didn't have the "resources" to buy it, would DEC "care" enough to
  give it to me ?  Or would the salesman smile sympathetically, leave, and go
  talk to another customer who needs the same system but has the money to pay
  for it ?  
  
> If you don't understand why x send such a mail, it is not a reason
> to make it a generality, and to build a all story about DEC's commitment to
> Unix.
> 
  I think that DEC's overall long-term relationship to UNIX is summarized very
  nicely in the following quotes attributed to Robert Palmer, DEC's CEO:

   "One of the things I learned fairly persuasively is that when the market
    is moving in a direction, you need to get in touch with that and get out
    in front of it.  This denial stuff doesn't work.  If the market wants to
    move to UNIX independent of the fact that it's inconvenient for you, you
    have to recognize that early and really get out in front.  Lip service 
    won't do."

     (later)

   DN&R: "You mentioned earlier that Digital has had a "denial" problem. Can
   you give us an example of an area to which Digital hasn't devoted enough
   development effort ?"

   Palmer: "Unix.  I don't think that we are giving enough resources to suppor-
   ting that need.  The customers were quite clear, but we didn't want to hear
   it because it was uncomfortable.  We have to listen to customers, whether
   it's UNIX, [Windows] NT, or OpenVMS."

    - DN&R, Oct. 12 & 26, 1992
> 
> I totally agree with you ... and this is why we are the first to come with
> OSF/1 ! Isn't it ?
> 
  So what ?  There appeared to be a general trend towards "unifying" UNIX for
  several years UNTIL a group of heavyweight vendors decided to take control
  into their own hands for their own purposes and formed OSF.  Now that those
  needs have been met, it doesn't look like anyone else particularly cares
  about OSF/1 as a complete standalone, separate product.  There may be one or
  two exceptions to that.  But regardless, OSF/1 is certainly not the Great 
  Unifier End All-Be All UNIX.  DEC may well be the first and LAST vendor to
  bring it to market.  Then what ?  How will OSF/1 be seen as anything other
  than a New and Improved DEC's Own UNIX ?  That will interoperate with other
  UNIX variants in the same half-assed way that all other UNIX variants
  interoperate today ?

  Customers would have been much better served if UNIX vendors had made a ser-
  ious attempt to serve customers rather than their own ends.  A lot of us
  would be much better off with a reasonably standard UNIX across most major
  platforms than a bunch of platforms each with its own The_Best_UNIX_on_the_
  Market.

> >A vendor that is
> >constantly in a reactive mode because of lack of resources, where the
> >vendor's top technical staff (who often are in touch with the market) are
> >forced to beg for ammunition to help fight internal battles .....
> 
> Internal battles ! This is such a old story.
> 
  Does "old story" make it untrue ?



  greg pavlov
  pavlov@fstrf.org