HP buys EDS - VMS

This is a discussion on HP buys EDS - VMS ; Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by HP will bode well for VMS? EDS may actually be a large scale VMS user and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive. They are, at least, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: HP buys EDS

  1. HP buys EDS

    Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    HP will bode well for VMS? EDS may actually be a large scale VMS
    user and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive. They
    are, at least, a company that understands software and marketing.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  2. Re: HP buys EDS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >
    > Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    > HP will bode well for VMS? EDS may actually be a large scale VMS
    > user and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive. They
    > are, at least, a company that understands software and marketing.


    In order for that to have meaning, the headline have to have read "EDS
    Buys HP Legacy OS", sub-head line: "OpenVMS to see resurgence in
    marketplace".

    We've seen what HPers do with stuff they know little about or understand
    little if at all. Perhaps VMS's fate awaits EDS (to die in ignominity
    and obscurity).

    ....unless EDS sells a spitload of printers. Then, all they did was
    purchase a new marketing arm for their imaging division.

    (HP folks other than usual c.o.v. denizens: if you think I'm being too
    harsh with you, prove me wrong! ...but don't just parrot the sunshine
    your bosses keep blowing up your skirt, cite cold, hard -VERIFIABLE-
    numbers!)

    David J Dachtera
    (formerly dba) DJE Systems

  3. Re: HP buys EDS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    > HP will bode well for VMS?


    HP mentality will flow to EDS, not the other way around.

    HP buying EDS is like a cat raising its hair: to appear bigger than it
    really is.

    If EDS will report to Livermore or Stallard, then it will put VMS
    further behind. Further behind in how important its profits are to HP
    and how important VMS is to upper management.

    The smaller VMS is compared to the rest of HP, (especially in terms of
    profits), the easier it will be for HP to decide VMS is not "core
    business" and just end this distraction.

    The purchase of EDS just means that when this happens, EDS employees
    will receive guindance from HP HQ on how to handle remaining VMS
    customers they have.

  4. Re: HP buys EDS

    In article <6fkfs7Fc2ppsU1@mid.individual.net>,
    billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

    > Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    > HP will bode well for VMS? EDS may actually be a large scale VMS
    > user and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive. They
    > are, at least, a company that understands software and marketing.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Are you sure?

    "EDS¹ troubled legacy of failed IT projects"

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=761

    --
    Paul Sture

  5. Re: HP buys EDS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    > HP will bode well for VMS? EDS may actually be a large scale VMS
    > user


    I thought EDS was developing and running customers systems.

    > and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive.


    My guess would be that that do not care about platforms as
    long as the customers pay them to work on them.

    > They
    > are, at least, a company that understands software and marketing.


    They must know something since they have become as big as they are.

    Arne

  6. Re: HP buys EDS

    In article <48951F31.33C8F1BB@spam.comcast.net>,
    David J Dachtera writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>
    >> Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    >> HP will bode well for VMS? EDS may actually be a large scale VMS
    >> user and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive. They
    >> are, at least, a company that understands software and marketing.

    >
    > In order for that to have meaning, the headline have to have read "EDS
    > Buys HP Legacy OS", sub-head line: "OpenVMS to see resurgence in
    > marketplace".
    >
    > We've seen what HPers do with stuff they know little about or understand
    > little if at all. Perhaps VMS's fate awaits EDS (to die in ignominity
    > and obscurity).
    >
    > ...unless EDS sells a spitload of printers. Then, all they did was
    > purchase a new marketing arm for their imaging division.
    >
    > (HP folks other than usual c.o.v. denizens: if you think I'm being too
    > harsh with you, prove me wrong! ...but don't just parrot the sunshine
    > your bosses keep blowing up your skirt, cite cold, hard -VERIFIABLE-
    > numbers!)


    Well, the reason I asked is that one of my peers here at Ft. Gordon
    works for EDS in his day job and while he had never heard of VMS he
    was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing about
    software and the reason for the EDS purchase was to bring in a major
    player who specialized oin software. I guess what we need to learn
    (and maybe some of the former DEC HPer's that are still hanging out
    here know someone they could ask) is if there is a chance that VMS
    might be turned over to EDS to maintain and, yes, maybe even market!!

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  7. Re: HP buys EDS

    In article <489526d0$0$18579$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    >> HP will bode well for VMS?

    >
    > HP mentality will flow to EDS, not the other way around.
    >


    As I said in my recent reply to David, EDS employees don't see it
    this way. And, apparently neither did the BOD of EDS who approved
    the merger.

    > HP buying EDS is like a cat raising its hair: to appear bigger than it
    > really is.


    Actually, the people at EDS seem to see this as a hardware company
    finally admiting that they don't know how to do the software thing
    and bringin in someone who does.

    >
    > If EDS will report to Livermore or Stallard, then it will put VMS
    > further behind. Further behind in how important its profits are to HP
    > and how important VMS is to upper management.
    >
    > The smaller VMS is compared to the rest of HP, (especially in terms of
    > profits), the easier it will be for HP to decide VMS is not "core
    > business" and just end this distraction.
    >
    > The purchase of EDS just means that when this happens, EDS employees
    > will receive guindance from HP HQ on how to handle remaining VMS
    > customers they have.


    Some of us are hoping you are wrong.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  8. Re: HP buys EDS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > In article <489526d0$0$18579$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    > JF Mezei writes:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>> Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    >>> HP will bode well for VMS?

    >> HP mentality will flow to EDS, not the other way around.

    >
    > As I said in my recent reply to David, EDS employees don't see it
    > this way. And, apparently neither did the BOD of EDS who approved
    > the merger.


    My guess would be that HP and EDS already have the same mentality.

    There is only one thing that counts: the bottom line.

    Arne

  9. Re: HP buys EDS

    Bill Gunshannon wrote:

    > was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing about
    > software



    HP knows that to reach the same size as IBM, it needs to grow its
    services business. Unfortunatly, instead of growing its own service
    business, it has chosen to buy EDS.

    This means that its existing service business (which is a combination of
    HP and what is left of Digital/Tandem) won't get "fixed" to grow since
    the impetus will be growth through acquisitions, leaving HP with a
    mismash of not-finely-tuned service businesses.

    Compare this with IBM that has a far more integrated and coordinated
    service business. The fact that EDS will remain, initially, a separate
    subsidiary is an indication that at least HP knows it lacks competant
    upper management and doesn't wish to infect EDS with its own incometant
    service/enterprise management.

    HP has put the right people in the ink and PC business. But it can't
    seem to be able to fix the upper management of its enterprise and
    service business.

  10. Re: HP buys EDS

    On Aug 3, 3:10 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing about
    > > software

    >
    > HP knows that to reach the same size as IBM, it needs to grow its
    > services business. Unfortunatly, instead of growing its own service
    > business, it has chosen to buy EDS.
    >
    > This means that its existing service business (which is a combination of
    > HP and what is left of Digital/Tandem) won't get "fixed" to grow since
    > the impetus will be growth through acquisitions, leaving HP with a
    > mismash of not-finely-tuned service businesses.
    >
    > Compare this with IBM that has a far more integrated and coordinated
    > service business. The fact that EDS will remain, initially, a separate
    > subsidiary is an indication that at least HP knows it lacks competant
    > upper management and doesn't wish to infect EDS with its own incometant
    > service/enterprise management.


    This shows how little you know of EDS. Their management is the king of
    incompetence.

  11. Re: HP buys EDS

    On Aug 3, 11:29 pm, "winston19842...@yahoo.com"
    wrote:
    > On Aug 3, 3:10 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > > was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing about
    > > > software

    >
    > > HP knows that to reach the same size as IBM, it needs to grow its
    > > services business. Unfortunatly, instead of growing its own service
    > > business, it has chosen to buy EDS.

    >
    > > This means that its existing service business (which is a combination of
    > > HP and what is left of Digital/Tandem) won't get "fixed" to grow since
    > > the impetus will be growth through acquisitions, leaving HP with a
    > > mismash of not-finely-tuned service businesses.

    >
    > > Compare this with IBM that has a far more integrated and coordinated
    > > service business. The fact that EDS will remain, initially, a separate
    > > subsidiary is an indication that at least HP knows it lacks competant
    > > upper management and doesn't wish to infect EDS with its own incometant
    > > service/enterprise management.

    >
    > This shows how little you know of EDS. Their management is the king of
    > incompetence.


    Depends what you mean by competent. At least in the UK, EDS management
    seem perfectly comptetent at winning big deals, both with the
    government and with the private sector. They seem to do this despite
    (rather than because of) their UK track record, which at least in the
    public sector, is far from rosy. I suspect their private sector track
    record isn't that different, but the private sector is often better at
    concealing business incompetence to avoid public embarrassment, as
    senior management generally don't particularly need to be held
    accountable, except perhaps to their Remuneration Committee.

  12. Re: HP buys EDS

    On Aug 2, 8:27*pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    > HP will bode well for VMS? *EDS may actually be a large scale VMS
    > user and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive. *They
    > are, at least, a company that understands software and marketing.
    >


    The best we can hope for is status quo. Corporate EDS gave up on
    OpenVMS several years back. Their so-called agile platforms are M$,
    Solaris, and Linux. Their are pockets of OpenVMS support, but most of
    the account teams will do whatever possible to get existing customers
    off OpenVMS. They will pick up existing OpenVMS operations -- at a
    price. I don't know if you could even convince them to propose a new
    solution on OpenVMS.

    > if there is a chance that VMS might be turned over to EDS to maintain and, yes, maybe even market!!


    HP is acquiring for the service/outsourcing expertise, not software
    development. If HP were to turn OpenVMS over to EDS my opinion is
    that it will only hasten the inevitable demise.

    Unfortunately, Arne has hit the nail on the head:

    > My guess would be that HP and EDS already have the same mentality.
    >
    > There is only one thing that counts: the bottom line.





  13. Re: HP buys EDS

    On 3 Aug 2008 01:27:35 GMT, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
    wrote:

    >Anybody here care to comment on wether this recent acquisition by
    >HP will bode well for VMS? EDS may actually be a large scale VMS
    >user and may have a vested interest in seeing it survive. They
    >are, at least, a company that understands software and marketing.
    >
    >bill


    I wondered that myself, recalling that they did DECset maintenance
    for a time in the late 90's.

    my impression was that they primarily chased govt and defense
    contracts, especially those specifiying IBM ....

    but they're big enough, probably to have their hand in most anything
    ....

    In 2006, EDS employed 117,000 people located in 58 countries and
    reported revenues of US$19.8 billion; by 2008, employment had risen to
    137,124 employees in 65 countries, the largest locations being the
    USA, India and the UK. It is ranked as one of the largest service
    companies on the Fortune 500 list with around 2,000 clients.



    $ sear sys$help:*decset*.release_notes; eds

    ******************************
    SYS$COMMON:[SYSHLP]DECSET121.RELEASE_NOTES;3

    While Digital or EDS believes the information included in
    Digital Equipment Corporation or EDS makes no repre-
    © EDS Defence Limited 1994, 1996.
    is that the range of text that needs to be saved has
    While Digital or EDS believes the information included in
    Digital Equipment Corporation or EDS makes no repre-
    © EDS Defence Limited 1994, 1996.
    While Digital or EDS believes the information included in
    Digital Equipment Corporation or EDS makes no repre-
    © EDS Defense Limited 1994, 1995, 1996.
    trying to copy an element with hundreds of generations
    18.The on-line help for CMS character-cell needs
    11.The on-line help for CMS DECwindows needs to be updated
    While Digital or EDS believes the information included in
    Digital Equipment Corporation or EDS makes no repre-
    © EDS Defense Limited 1994, 1995.
    error: LICENSE-F-EXCEEDED, ATTEMPTED USAGE EXCEEDS
    While Digital or EDS believes the information included in
    Digital Equipment Corporation or EDS makes no repre-
    Copyright © EDS Defense Limited 1994, 1996.
    While Digital or EDS believes the information included in
    Digital Equipment Corporation or EDS makes no repre-
    © EDS Defense Limited 1994, 1995, 1996.
    While Digital or EDS believes the information included in
    Digital Equipment Corporation or EDS makes no repre-
    © EDS Defence Limited 1994, 1995, 1996.

    ******************************
    SYS$COMMON:[SYSHLP]DECSET124.RELEASE_NOTES;1

    Compaq or EDS required for possession, use, or copying.
    Neither Compaq nor EDS shall be liable for technical



  14. Re: HP buys EDS


    "Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message
    news:4895d3a6$0$90262$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
    >
    > They must know something since they have become as big as they are.



    A lot of companies that bid on government and large private-sector work
    survive because of the self-selection processes that government/business
    have.

    You have to be a certain size company in order to bid on many contracts,
    irrespective of the quality, or on-time, on-budget nature of your
    deliverables. This means that large IT outsourcers like EDS will continue to
    get business despite the merits of smaller companies who are shut out of the
    bidding process.



  15. Re: HP buys EDS

    In article <7f059$489701e4$4c0aab67$17377@TEKSAVVY.COM>, "John Smith" writes:
    >
    > You have to be a certain size company in order to bid on many contracts,
    > irrespective of the quality, or on-time, on-budget nature of your
    > deliverables.


    And some times that size is: no-larger-than.


  16. Re: HP buys EDS

    John Smith wrote:
    > "Arne Vajhøj" wrote in message
    > news:4895d3a6$0$90262$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
    >> They must know something since they have become as big as they are.

    >
    > A lot of companies that bid on government and large private-sector work
    > survive because of the self-selection processes that government/business
    > have.
    >
    > You have to be a certain size company in order to bid on many contracts,
    > irrespective of the quality, or on-time, on-budget nature of your
    > deliverables. This means that large IT outsourcers like EDS will continue to
    > get business despite the merits of smaller companies who are shut out of the
    > bidding process.


    Sure.

    But there are other big players than EDS.

    Arne

  17. Re: HP buys EDS

    On Aug 4, 12:17 am, johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > On Aug 3, 11:29 pm, "winston19842...@yahoo.com"
    >
    >
    >
    > wrote:
    > > On Aug 3, 3:10 pm, JF Mezei wrote:

    >
    > > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > > > was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing about
    > > > > software

    >
    > > > HP knows that to reach the same size as IBM, it needs to grow its
    > > > services business. Unfortunatly, instead of growing its own service
    > > > business, it has chosen to buy EDS.

    >
    > > > This means that its existing service business (which is a combinationof
    > > > HP and what is left of Digital/Tandem) won't get "fixed" to grow since
    > > > the impetus will be growth through acquisitions, leaving HP with a
    > > > mismash of not-finely-tuned service businesses.

    >
    > > > Compare this with IBM that has a far more integrated and coordinated
    > > > service business. The fact that EDS will remain, initially, a separate
    > > > subsidiary is an indication that at least HP knows it lacks competant
    > > > upper management and doesn't wish to infect EDS with its own incometant
    > > > service/enterprise management.

    >
    > > This shows how little you know of EDS. Their management is the king of
    > > incompetence.

    >
    > Depends what you mean by competent. At least in the UK, EDS management
    > seem perfectly comptetent at winning big deals, both with the
    > government and with the private sector. They seem to do this despite
    > (rather than because of) their UK track record, which at least in the
    > public sector, is far from rosy. I suspect their private sector track
    > record isn't that different, but the private sector is often better at
    > concealing business incompetence to avoid public embarrassment, as
    > senior management generally don't particularly need to be held
    > accountable, except perhaps to their Remuneration Committee.


    Well, speaking of competent... a joint venture company whose major
    shareholders include EDS and US defence contractor Cubic just got
    notice of premature termination of their £100M/year 17-year contract
    to run the ticketing for what passes for "public transport" in London.
    Termination discussions had been ongoing for some months, but in
    recent weeks there had been two separate catastrophic failures of the
    system reported in the UK national press (not just the IT rags). The
    failures weren't the kind of behaviour you'd expect from a properly
    designed and implemented VMS-based setup, but the termination of the
    contract is equally notable as such terminations are remarkably rare.

    Jul 26: 2nd failure: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/151cdf22-5...077b07658.html
    Aug 9: termination: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3339b3c2-6...0779fd18c.html


  18. RE: HP buys EDS

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk [mailto:johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk]
    > Sent: August 9, 2008 9:23 AM
    > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com
    > Subject: Re: HP buys EDS
    >
    > On Aug 4, 12:17 am, johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > > On Aug 3, 11:29 pm, "winston19842...@yahoo.com"
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > wrote:
    > > > On Aug 3, 3:10 pm, JF Mezei wrote:

    > >
    > > > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > > > > > was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing

    > about
    > > > > > software

    > >
    > > > > HP knows that to reach the same size as IBM, it needs to grow its
    > > > > services business. Unfortunatly, instead of growing its own

    > service
    > > > > business, it has chosen to buy EDS.

    > >
    > > > > This means that its existing service business (which is a

    > combination of
    > > > > HP and what is left of Digital/Tandem) won't get "fixed" to grow

    > since
    > > > > the impetus will be growth through acquisitions, leaving HP with

    > a
    > > > > mismash of not-finely-tuned service businesses.

    > >
    > > > > Compare this with IBM that has a far more integrated and

    > coordinated
    > > > > service business. The fact that EDS will remain, initially, a

    > separate
    > > > > subsidiary is an indication that at least HP knows it lacks

    > competant
    > > > > upper management and doesn't wish to infect EDS with its own

    > incometant
    > > > > service/enterprise management.

    > >
    > > > This shows how little you know of EDS. Their management is the king

    > of
    > > > incompetence.

    > >
    > > Depends what you mean by competent. At least in the UK, EDS

    > management
    > > seem perfectly comptetent at winning big deals, both with the
    > > government and with the private sector. They seem to do this despite
    > > (rather than because of) their UK track record, which at least in the
    > > public sector, is far from rosy. I suspect their private sector track
    > > record isn't that different, but the private sector is often better

    > at
    > > concealing business incompetence to avoid public embarrassment, as
    > > senior management generally don't particularly need to be held
    > > accountable, except perhaps to their Remuneration Committee.

    >
    > Well, speaking of competent... a joint venture company whose major
    > shareholders include EDS and US defence contractor Cubic just got
    > notice of premature termination of their £100M/year 17-year contract
    > to run the ticketing for what passes for "public transport" in London.
    > Termination discussions had been ongoing for some months, but in
    > recent weeks there had been two separate catastrophic failures of the
    > system reported in the UK national press (not just the IT rags). The
    > failures weren't the kind of behaviour you'd expect from a properly
    > designed and implemented VMS-based setup, but the termination of the
    > contract is equally notable as such terminations are remarkably rare.
    >
    > Jul 26: 2nd failure: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/151cdf22-5aac-11dd-bf96-
    > 000077b07658.html
    > Aug 9: termination: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3339b3c2-65ab-11dd-a352-
    > 0000779fd18c.html


    John - Not sure if this is the same Cust environment you are referring
    to, but it looks and sounds like it:

    http://tinyurl.com/6baeo5 (May 2008)
    "Linux opens London's Oyster"

    Above tiny url translates to:
    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/misc/print/0,...001110c,00.htm

    And most recently: (August 2008)
    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9458726,00.htm
    "TfL terminates Oyster contract"


    Regards

    Kerry Main
    Senior Consultant
    HP Services Canada
    Voice: 613-254-8911
    Fax: 613-591-4477
    kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
    (remove the DOT's and AT)

    OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that just works.




  19. Re: HP buys EDS

    In article ,
    johnwallace4@yahoo.co.uk writes:
    > On Aug 4, 12:17 am, johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    >> On Aug 3, 11:29 pm, "winston19842...@yahoo.com"
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >> > On Aug 3, 3:10 pm, JF Mezei wrote:

    >>
    >> > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >> > > > was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing about
    >> > > > software

    >>
    >> > > HP knows that to reach the same size as IBM, it needs to grow its
    >> > > services business. Unfortunatly, instead of growing its own service
    >> > > business, it has chosen to buy EDS.

    >>
    >> > > This means that its existing service business (which is a combination of
    >> > > HP and what is left of Digital/Tandem) won't get "fixed" to grow since
    >> > > the impetus will be growth through acquisitions, leaving HP with a
    >> > > mismash of not-finely-tuned service businesses.

    >>
    >> > > Compare this with IBM that has a far more integrated and coordinated
    >> > > service business. The fact that EDS will remain, initially, a separate
    >> > > subsidiary is an indication that at least HP knows it lacks competant
    >> > > upper management and doesn't wish to infect EDS with its own incometant
    >> > > service/enterprise management.

    >>
    >> > This shows how little you know of EDS. Their management is the king of
    >> > incompetence.

    >>
    >> Depends what you mean by competent. At least in the UK, EDS management
    >> seem perfectly comptetent at winning big deals, both with the
    >> government and with the private sector. They seem to do this despite
    >> (rather than because of) their UK track record, which at least in the
    >> public sector, is far from rosy. I suspect their private sector track
    >> record isn't that different, but the private sector is often better at
    >> concealing business incompetence to avoid public embarrassment, as
    >> senior management generally don't particularly need to be held
    >> accountable, except perhaps to their Remuneration Committee.

    > Well, speaking of competent... a joint venture company whose major
    > shareholders include EDS and US defence contractor Cubic just got
    > notice of premature termination of their £100M/year 17-year contract
    > to run the ticketing for what passes for "public transport" in London.
    > Termination discussions had been ongoing for some months, but in
    > recent weeks there had been two separate catastrophic failures of the
    > system reported in the UK national press (not just the IT rags). The
    > failures weren't the kind of behaviour you'd expect from a properly
    > designed and implemented VMS-based setup, but the termination of the
    > contract is equally notable as such terminations are remarkably rare.
    > Jul 26: 2nd failure: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/151cdf22-5...077b07658.html
    > Aug 9: termination: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3339b3c2-6...0779fd18c.html


    And, unless you actually work on the project, you really have no idea if
    this was a failure to properly code the project or if the code accurately
    reflects the tasks as described by the customer.

    I offer as an example a case quite some time ago of a company paid to
    create a simulator for the F16. In the testing phase a someone climbed
    into the ****pit, hit the raise landing gear switch and watched the
    simulator crash on the the simulated surface. Of course, everyone
    immediately argued that this was a major bug, until they found out that
    performing the same action in a real F16 had the same result!! Thankfully,
    they they fixed both of them.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  20. Re: HP buys EDS

    On Aug 10, 5:37 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article ,
    > johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Aug 4, 12:17 am, johnwalla...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > >> On Aug 3, 11:29 pm, "winston19842...@yahoo.com"

    >
    > >> wrote:
    > >> > On Aug 3, 3:10 pm, JF Mezei wrote:

    >
    > >> > > Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    > >> > > > was adamant that HP was a hardware company that knew nothing about
    > >> > > > software

    >
    > >> > > HP knows that to reach the same size as IBM, it needs to grow its
    > >> > > services business. Unfortunatly, instead of growing its own service
    > >> > > business, it has chosen to buy EDS.

    >
    > >> > > This means that its existing service business (which is a combination of
    > >> > > HP and what is left of Digital/Tandem) won't get "fixed" to grow since
    > >> > > the impetus will be growth through acquisitions, leaving HP with a
    > >> > > mismash of not-finely-tuned service businesses.

    >
    > >> > > Compare this with IBM that has a far more integrated and coordinated
    > >> > > service business. The fact that EDS will remain, initially, a separate
    > >> > > subsidiary is an indication that at least HP knows it lacks competant
    > >> > > upper management and doesn't wish to infect EDS with its own incometant
    > >> > > service/enterprise management.

    >
    > >> > This shows how little you know of EDS. Their management is the king of
    > >> > incompetence.

    >
    > >> Depends what you mean by competent. At least in the UK, EDS management
    > >> seem perfectly comptetent at winning big deals, both with the
    > >> government and with the private sector. They seem to do this despite
    > >> (rather than because of) their UK track record, which at least in the
    > >> public sector, is far from rosy. I suspect their private sector track
    > >> record isn't that different, but the private sector is often better at
    > >> concealing business incompetence to avoid public embarrassment, as
    > >> senior management generally don't particularly need to be held
    > >> accountable, except perhaps to their Remuneration Committee.

    > > Well, speaking of competent... a joint venture company whose major
    > > shareholders include EDS and US defence contractor Cubic just got
    > > notice of premature termination of their £100M/year 17-year contract
    > > to run the ticketing for what passes for "public transport" in London.
    > > Termination discussions had been ongoing for some months, but in
    > > recent weeks there had been two separate catastrophic failures of the
    > > system reported in the UK national press (not just the IT rags). The
    > > failures weren't the kind of behaviour you'd expect from a properly
    > > designed and implemented VMS-based setup, but the termination of the
    > > contract is equally notable as such terminations are remarkably rare.
    > > Jul 26: 2nd failure:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/151cdf22-5...077b07658.html
    > > Aug 9: termination:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3339b3c2-6...0779fd18c.html

    >
    > And, unless you actually work on the project, you really have no idea if
    > this was a failure to properly code the project or if the code accurately
    > reflects the tasks as described by the customer.
    >
    > I offer as an example a case quite some time ago of a company paid to
    > create a simulator for the F16. In the testing phase a someone climbed
    > into the ****pit, hit the raise landing gear switch and watched the
    > simulator crash on the the simulated surface. Of course, everyone
    > immediately argued that this was a major bug, until they found out that
    > performing the same action in a real F16 had the same result!! Thankfully,
    > they they fixed both of them.
    >
    > bill
    >
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


    Based on the first link Kerry kindly posted, EDS's current
    responsibility was/is the "operation" of the system. The design was
    reportedly farmed out to yet another well known name in the City of
    London, Deloitte's (not well known to me for IT systems design and
    implementation, mind you, and quickly reading their own PR info on the
    project [1], I'm not sure Deloitte's *did* do the design
    +implementation, or whether they just wrote a nice RfP and then farmed
    it out yet again...). Still, so long as there's a prime contractor
    somewhere in this picture, that's where the buck stops.

    I do take your point re specification vs implementation (as it happens
    I work in an industry whose end products control aircraft engines,
    where that kind of thing is a bit important) but some of the failure
    modes seen recently (such as the one which resulted in the need to
    replace thousands of payment cards) probably should not have been
    expected/permitted *whatever* the specification initially said.

    Regards
    John

    [1] http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/...sterEpurse.pdf

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast