From Richard Owen UK Workstation Marketing Manager Hewlett-Packard Ltd Bracknell RG12 1HN It appears that I have reached the pinnacle of success of people who deal with the press; I have been misquoted. I refer to your article Hewlett- Packard on OSF/1: The problem is that it isn’t called Unix – Users want Unix (CI […]
From Richard Owen UK Workstation Marketing Manager Hewlett-Packard Ltd Bracknell RG12 1HN
It appears that I have reached the pinnacle of success of people who deal with the press; I have been misquoted. I refer to your article Hewlett- Packard on OSF/1: The problem is that it isn’t called Unix – Users want Unix (CI No 1,927). Firstly, you quote me as saying that Hewlett- Packard is not in a hurry to move to OSF/1. I’m not happy with that emphasis. It implies that we are dawdling towards OSF/1. We are in fact moving towards OSF/1 just as fast as we can, given that we need to make OSF/1 and HP/UX binary compatible and the code has to be rock solid. Hewlett-Pack ard has customers running their businesses on our Unix. They demand that we evolve our Operating Systems forward in such a way that we cause them little or no disruption. Rock solid quality and binary compatibility are required to achieve this.
Secondly, What’s in a name? You quote me as saying The big problem is that it (OSF/1) isn’t Unix. And users want Unix. Not correct. I was attempting to explain that it better suited our needs to take HP-UX and evolve it into OSF/1 than it did to take OSF/1 from the OSF and fit it back into our systems. This work I attempted to explain was easy because HP-UX was a very standard implementation of Unix and isn’t therefore very far away from OSF/1. I then went on to say that this usually needs explaining because OSF/1 isn’t called Unix and isn’t therefore people tend to assume it is a radically different beast from Unix and therefore the amount of work required to evolve a Unix such as HP-UX to OSF/1 is large and disruptive. Hewlett-Packard has no problems with the name OSF/1 and neither do users.
Thirdly, I seem to have confused your journalist over our work on the DCE and DME. Hewlett-Packard are not doing any better or worse on the DCE than the DME. This is due to the fact that the work is being done by the OSF, not Hewlett-Packard. Since both products contain large amounts of Hewlett-Packard technology we feel very comfortable with both of them. The problem that you quote me as describing as hairy is real though. It is a challenge not just for Hewlett-Packard but the OSF and all its customers. The DCE and DME are sophisticated pieces of software and the testing of these in multi-vendor, multi-operating system environment is a complex task.
I think that your reporting of the demise of ANDF is premature. I made it clear to your journalist that the only information I had on the OSF and ANDF was what I had read in your publication. Asked to comment on the hypothetical situation that the OSF/ANDF technology doesn’t make it to market, I commented that in my (and not Hewlett-Packard’s) opinion, the market was increasingly aware and demanding of ANDF technology. I suppose that teaches me to answer a hypothetical question.
I am used to a professional and reasonable relationship with all at APT. I am upset that your journalist felt it necessary to represent what he knew to be my views as those of my Company and blow up what was a small explanatory comment to the point of implying that Hewlett-Packard had problems with the OSF. I can only hope that he will find a more responsible way to achieve his article quota in future.