The following was presented at HPWorld 2002 and also appeared in the September 2002 issue of The 3000 NewsWire.

Burke's Manifesto for HP - September 2002

I can certainly accept that HP made a business decision about what was right for it. However, this decision required reneging on a frequently stated (over a period of several years) public pledge to port MPE/iX to IA-64. I contend this considerably raised the bar setting what it ethically should do for its suddenly stranded customers and developers. HP has been publicly congratulating itself on all the things it is doing for these people, pointing out how much more it is doing than other companies that have discontinued systems. On critical examination, it is my opinion we are talking merely chump change. The HP 3000 has contributed a large amount of money to HP's coffers over the nearly 30 years of its existence. [How can we forget HP lawyers describing the HP 3000 in a recent court case as the "crown jewels"?] I think it owes us a lot more than has been given to date. I cannot, and will never, accept the way HP has treated its customers and developers to date. And, I will continue to speak out until it gets it right. Below is the draft of a section from my "net.digest" column appearing in the September issue of the 3000 NewsWire. I hope to be pleasantly surprised at HPWorld, but I am preparing to be disappointed.

Since I wrote the section below, I've been doing a lot of thinking about transition issues. Mostly, I've been trying to speculate about HP's objectives for the phase out period and beyond. When HP decided to EOL the HP 3000, one of the first things it presumably did was design an exit strategy complete with goals and objectives. The virtual CSY has been mostly silent for over 10 months now about anything other than migration, so it is reasonable to assume that one of the objectives is to move the maximum number of customers to another HP platform, preferably HP-UX.

Are there any other objectives? So far, it is impossible to tell. We've been "talking" in a number of forums about specifics such as those described below, but until we know what the objectives are that are driving HP's response, we can not really engage them in any meaningful dialogue. So, in addition to responding to the nine points below, I challenge HP to publicly present the objectives for its HP 3000 exit strategy.

HP, It is Well Past Time to Stop Dallying and Do the Right Thing

Did I say wish list? I meant demands. First off, lest anyone accuse me of favoring one approach over another, let me point out that HP and its Platinum Partners have the migration area already well covered, at least for those who figure to migrate within the next couple of years. For those who plan to migrate, but need more time, the demands below are equally important to you as they are to homesteaders and others.

Let me get this fact on the table, because it drives everything else; HP reneged on a publicly stated promise that was re-stated multiple times publicly over several years. People and companies made career and business decisions based upon this promise. HP's decision to renege on this promise has cost, and will cost, its customers hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures, all with very little payback. Careers have been destroyed. Many third-party vendors have been mortally wounded.

Is it too much to ask HP to do the right thing? I think not. In fact, I think they owe it to us.

First, OpenMPE's "gang of six". These requests have been floating around in various forms for many months, some even dating back to shortly after the November 14 announcement. OpenMPE condensed much of the discussion into these 6 requests (somewhat reworded from published OpenMPE wording to reflect my tastes, sensibilities and understanding - any errors or misrepresentations are solely my responsibility).

· "Remove or publish the passwords for MPE-unique utilities (for example, sysdiag) no later than the end of support (EOL) in 2006." Passwords were usually put on the utilities to protect HP's intellectual property (and support revenue stream). After EOL, there is no longer any revenue stream to protect. This should be a no-brainer.

· "Enable MPE license transfers / upgrades and hardware re-configuration (add / upgrade processors, etc.) on PA-RISC hardware to continue after end of HP sales and support; for changing user license levels, acquiring used e3000 systems, etc." I go somewhat further here: remove all licensing restrictions sometime after EOS. Put MPE/iX binaries in the public domain. Furthermore, license ssconfig (possibly for a fee) to individuals or third parties to enable hardware upgrades, maintenance and unfettered commerce in used systems and equipment.

· "Allow 3rd-party creation and beta testing of an MPE emulator to start in 2002, and commit to allowing users to buy and run a 3rd-party emulator without having to give up existing MPE licenses on PA-RISC hardware. No HP emulator restrictions after 2006." The key here is the licensing issue. Repeat from above, remove all licensing restrictions and put MPE/iX binaries in the public domain.

· "Allow non-HP access to, and escrow of, MPE source code." HP may not be legally required to do this, but it is the ethical thing to do. What possible purpose is there to holding on to this material?

· "Put all MPE documentation in the public domain no later than the end of 2006." To me this includes all internal documentation as well (perhaps sanitized as necessary though I am not sure I understand why this would be needed). This should be a no-brainer.

· "Enable 3rd-party e3000 software support after 2006." I am going to take this to mean make the tools available so that third party software maintainers can actually create and distribute patches as necessary. These tools and documentation are specific to the HP 3000, so why not release them?

Now for some additions.

· By EOS provide a low-cost method for users to "un-cripple" the CPUs on all A-Class and N-Class systems that have been slowed down compared to their HP 9000 hardware equivalents. The crippling of the MPE/iX systems is probably one of the worst kept secrets in the community, so I don't think I'm betraying any trusts here. For example, there is no 110 mhz processor. It is actually a 440 mhz processor that has been crippled in such a way as to provide only about 1/8 th the overall computing capability. At a premium no less to the un-crippled 440 mhz A-series HP-UX box. Call it an end of sales (EOS) "gift" to customers who bought into the A-series in good faith. Whatever, it is the right thing to do.

· Allow MPE/iX 7.x to boot on 9x7 systems. This was a purely marketing decision made long before the HP 3000 was EOL'd to try and pump up sales. Obviously, it did not work as well as HP had hoped. So, why not as a gesture of good will, roll it back? Again, at this point it does not affect revenue and actually helps not only customers, but also third party software vendors and maintainers (potentially fewer releases to support). As a side benefit for HP, it could probably EOL MPE/iX 6.5 sooner, thus also having fewer OS releases to support in the 2003 to 2006 timeframe.

· Finally, and this is just a pet peeve more than anything else. Stop with all the insulting grandfatherly advice. Stop saying, and here I am quoting directly someone from HP, "I don't know if the decision to discontinue MPE was right or wrong. But I think the thought process that led to the decision was one in which 'what's right for the customer' was the number one motivation." Please do not try to tell me what is best for me. For years we've had to beg, plead and cajole to get improvements to MPE/iX and the HP 3000, because HP would not do anything until some critical mass of customers virtually demanded it. The mantra was "customer focused engineering", a great concept until taken to the extreme that HP did. "Customer focused engineering" is the chief reason the HP 3000 was always late and short on new technologies. Perhaps if more people had been paying attention to "what's right for the customer" years ago, we would not be in the situation we find ourselves?

Ok, HP, the gauntlet has been tossed. Just do it.