Conference 7.286::digital

    Contact anitad@pa.dec.com.  She's the sys op for these
    systems, so she can either do this or point you at the right
    person to talk to.
    

Anita is no longer involved with these systems. Contact Jack (KACIE::) Lucier,
who manages this program.  See also the attached notice which went out to
all the test-drive system users. (I spoke with Jack about the problems and
I'm convinced he's trying to do the right thing.)

				Steve

  Test Drive an Alpha Users;

  Digital's Test Drive an Alpha Program has provided our
  customers with a open testing area for several years. 
  It's main purpose was to support the software transition 
  from 32-bit systems to todays 64-bit environment. Over the 
  past years many have successfully tested new versions of 
  software. 

  Todays internet world is continually changing. Due to World 
  Trade Agreements and U.S. Department of Commerce concerns, 
  Digital cannot openly supply the latest technology available. 
  For this reason the current systems have not been aggressively 
  upgraded with the latest technology.

  Our plans are to design a new environment that can utilize the 
  best software and hardware technologies available. We ask for 
  your help in designing this new service. 

  Our plans are to remove the current systems from the internet 
  on November 1,1995.  


  Please forward any correspondence to lucier@kacie.enet.dec.com.

  We look forward to your feedback.

    Excuse me?
    
    Today is 30-Oct.  The previous note says the system is coming off
    the Internet on 1-Nov.  Kind of short notice, eh?
    
    I've heard lots of good things about these systems.  And, I've gotten,
    somehow, mail messages over the past year about how 'x' many people
    used them, etc.  But when it comes time to shut them down... 2 days
    notice?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.  That ______s.   You fill in the word.
    
    I, just last week, referred a customer to our web page
    (www.digital.com).  And, sure enough, there's a pointer to this
    (these) systems.  There's not indication of ANY sort the they are
    kaput.
    
    I real disappointed that communications to the field (Digital) and
    our customers (via the web or whatever) got dropped on the floor.
    
    So, am I supposed to vounteer my Alphastation to every customer in
    the DFW area?  ;-)  

    
    
    Thanks for the information.
    
    Laurie

The message I posted was originally sent on the 23rd.

Initially I was as upset as you were, but Jack Lucier took the time to talk
to me about why this was being done and I, reluctantly, understand and
accept that it has to be. 

The primary problem is that the US Government has been leaning heavily on
Digital to keep the latest technology off these systems.  Initially that
meant not upgrading the hardware to the latest and fastest systems but then
we were told to not put our latest compilers on them either!  This in turn
created a problem where prospective customers were using these systems for
benchmarks and we lost sales because of it.  Most recently, the government
turned the screws tighter and there is little recourse but to shut the systems
down before Digital finds itself in significant hot water (remember the
multi-million dollar fine we paid some years ago for supposedly exporting
technology to a prohibited country?  We don't want a repeat of that.)

Jack is fully aware of how valuable these systems were and how much they
did for Digital.  He said that since he sent out the mailing informing users
of the program's end, most of the responses he received expressed thanks
for offering the service in the first place.  We're the only vendor to have
done this.

Jack wants to figure out how to get some sort of user-accessible systems back
on the net and is asking people who have ideas and suggestions to get in
touch with him.

					Steve

    re: Note 4227.5 by QUARK::LIONEL 
    
    Maybe we should advertise that we would like to allow everyone to
    tryout Alpha, but the US goverment seems to have a problem with that,
    something about Alpha being too fast.
    
    -Bruce
    

Advertise?  You mean for an actual product (that isn't a PC)?  Do we do that?

				Steve

	Maybe the logins to the systems could be restricted to USA
	registered TCP/IP addresses? I know of web pages that can
	only be seen if you are coming from a Danish TCP/IP address
	for instance.

	
							mike

	I agree with the response a few back.  I just sent some migration 
	customers and third party software vendors to the Web pages after I 
	checked and wandered down from www.digital.com to verify the path 
	still exists.  It did and had no mention of pending expiration.  
	Is this the same old DEC, not persistent just when the message is 
	starting to spread?  We need these tools ported to Alpha and we need 
	to fight the old tapes of DEC not caring and not responding to 
	vendor/customer needs.  Freeport and Alphas on the internet have 
	gotten a few of our tool vendors to take a serious look at porting 
	and supporting an Alpha platform.  Some of these vendors chose to 
	go get an Alpha and not use the 'public' ones.  The perception 
	and image that we allowing anyone a low/no(?) investment chance to 
	'kick the tires' is a powerful message.  The message, 'we are not 
	afraid of anyone exploring the speed and capabilities of an Alpha' 
	comes across clearly when customers here of these Alphas.  

	There are ways to address the concerns of governments about security.  
	Please seek some creative ways to continue this Internet service and 
	advertisement.  I have ideas and opinions about these restrictions, 
	but that is another, larger issue.  I do not want to discuss merits or 
	values of these restrictions here.  

	We need the applications to beat this 'chicken or egg' appearance of 
	few applications so there is little market demand so vendors won't 
	support Alpha platforms.  Give them no reason to not port Alphas.  
	Give them a chance to verify the ease of use and speed for themselves.  
	Let Freeport and our image as a supplier of the best platform for their 
	product and their customers move Digital forward.   

	Dave Atkinson
	Networks Engineering CAD 

The account application service already does domain and other checks. 
Apparently it isn't enough to satisfy the US.  If you have ideas, please
send them to Jack.

				Steve

    Whilst I sympathise with the concerns over (a) export controls (b)
    benchmark losses, the systems could still be a valuable asset simply
    to give potential customers a flavour of what Digital UNIX has in it,
    and an occasional reference of how a "typical" Digital UNIX system is
    set up. Taking them off the net, especially at such short notice, does
    seem like overkill to the uninformed (ie me).

It sounds as if there was no choice.

If the government said that we either take the systems off the net now,
or pay massive fines for exporting prohibited technology, and then
take the machines off the net anyway, what do you think the right answer is??

I'm not saying that this is painless to anyone at Digital or elsewhere,
or that the US government regulations make sense, but we do need to live
with them.  Wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

Perhaps the government would allow access if it were limited on a 
one-by-one basis such that we could verify exactly who we allowed to
access our machines.  This would be a massive amount of costly overhead
both for those managing the systems, and for those (salesmen) requesting
access for their customers.  Worth it?  I dunno.  What say you?

    well, if we're "banned from the Internet", might as well get some
    mileage out of it.  How about some underground advertising in the
    newsgroups: "Alpha is so hot the U.S. gov't made us take them off
    the net."
    
    Mark

	There are a number of organizations fighting ITAR rules.  There are 
	some major hardware vendors of recent memory talking to Congress 
	and the Administration on these rules and as they pertain to 
	encription.  Where's our lobbyist when we need them?  

	I like the idea of guerilla marketing on the internet in -.1.  
	Might make the new DDB 'Whatever it Takes' campaign to a new 
	dimension!  Let's get this Web page out there and slip the mention of 
	it into a few well placed news forums.  

	Dave

    
    To All Noters:
    
    THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS NOT REQUESTED THAT WE TAKE DOWN THE EXISTING
    AXP ON THE INTERNET SYSTEMS, NOT UPGRADE THE SYSTEMS OR NOT USE OUR
    LATEST COMPILERS.
    
    I work with the Digital Trade Group. We are responsible for enforcing
    U.S. Government controls over exports, including any transfer of
    technical data to any foreign national. We have worked sucessfully with
    the management of the AXP on the Internet Program since it's inception.
    
    We helped establish a registration process for applicants for accounts
    on the AXPs that provided appropriate screening and addressed any
    government concerns.
    
    Trade has had some dialogue with the new management of the AXP on the
    Internet Program. Trade has not requested that Digital stop the program
    or upgrade the systems. There continues to be a requirement to provide
    a registration process that addresses any  government regulations.
    
    If you have questions, comments, or concerns, please contact me
    directly. I do not monitor this file.
    
    Regards,
    
    TED LOWNEY
    
    Export Compliance, Trade
               

    
    Re .15:
    
    DAMN -- there goes a great ad campaign.
    

RE: .15

	Could you please stop calling it AXP? It's Alpha. AXP got dropped.

							mike

    
    
    Perhaps I'm missing something here...
    
    If the government and "trade" have NOT demanded that the Alpha's 
    come off the net, why are we doing it?
    
    Kevin
    
    

    Quite. Jack Lucier from SBU Marketing is not here to defend himself
    (though he's got Steve convinced), but Ted Lowney from Export Controls
    says it's not his group that's driving this. 2 + 2 = ?

I've asked Jack to review this thread and comment.

			Steve

Clearly, the systems are vastly out of date.  17 months ago, SGI announced
310 SPECfp92 and is now up to 396.  Having a 185 SPECfp92 system on the net
as our "test drive" system is not putting our best foot forward (especially
since we now sell systems with >500 SPECfp92).

	/john

But the announcement didn't say they were replacing them with up-to-date
systems.  Is the point of these systems to show how fast our computers are?
If so, is there any assurance of reasonable system load?

There was never any encouragement to use these systems for benchmarks - indeed,
at first there was an explicit prohibition against it but that was lifted
when it was realized nobody could enforce it.  The systems were heavily used
and people were discouraged from relying on benchmark data from them.

Most of the users wanted a system to try out - to see if their programs would
port, and some ISVs used the systems to actually do an Alpha port, allowing
them to offer Alpha support they otherwise would not have.

It might not be a bad idea to keep the systems, hardware-wise, behind the
times so as to discourage benchmarking.

					Steve

    Steve,
    
    You're right, benchmarking was "discouraged".  But there are all sorts
    of simple codes (typically FORTRAN) that you can get a pretty good
    first idea about even on a shared system.  And there is clear evidence 
    that the systems *have* been used for benchmarking.  
    
    The performance community consistently gave input to suggest that:
     
       - there are two kinds of benchmarking: controlled, and casual
       - it is in Digital's best interest to make *both* kinds as easy 
         as possible for customers
       - Digital can make a business decision to put, say, the latest 
         technology into the controlled category and one-back into the 
         casual category
       - But having 185 SPECfp92 in the casual category is MUCH more than 
         one-back.
    
    The Internet test-drive systems "weren't used for benchmarking" just
    like sports car test-drives on a shared 55-mph highway don't exceed the
    speed limit.
    
    	/john

	I had to make the decision to remove the currently outdated
	equipment from the Internet.

	
	Why;
	We had no approved system support resources...
	Their contact had expired and the systems could go unattended. 
	
	Without placing usage restrictions on the systems, 
	we could not upgrade them to our latest technology.
	(Customer ran a benchmark against SGI... we lost)
	
	To continue them as is (a losing proposition)we would
	have had to downgrade the available software to a older
	release.

	I setup a my mail account to receive feedback as to where
	the program should head. As of today 121 responses, quick
	breakdown;

	60% Just said thanks (thanks to Anita de la Rosa)
	20% Are testing software 
	20% Mix (I need resources, I don't have this or that)

	Now ask yourself "If someone is running a company on
	a free machine... Why would they ever buy anything ?"

	We (Internal Digital) are also using these systems to
	support programs that should have their own infastructure. 
	This became a dumping ground for every request for cycles.


	We do we go...

	I have kept every memo and will use this information to 
	drive for support from the responsible organizations. If you
	all are concerned about what this becomes, join me in this
	effort..

		Jack Lucier 297-9185
	 		

        I agree with what Jack said in .25, but feel these arguments are
        timeless (except for the support issue).  I have written Jack on my
        position on this issue.  The points Jack made in .25 existed when we 
	first put these systems on the air.  I think the only valid point is 
	the support issue.  The other points existed before and will exist in 
	the future.

        Did we achieve our goals with these systems?

        Is this advertising (that's what it really is) getting to the desired
                market and contact person?

        Who will sponsor this unique marketing and advertising venue?

        Who will update the Web pages?

	Can we afford to continue with evaluation systems on the Internet?
		Can we afford not to?

        I do believe we should continue some level of support for these 
	systems on the Internet.  We are a small niche market (ouch, that hurt) 
	and need every possible leverage point we can get to differentiate and 
	bring attention to Digital.  We can't stop people from doing stupid 
	things.  We can only instruct them in the possible outcomes of their 
	actions.  The relatively low cost of evaluation allows many developers 
	the ability to 'taste' 64 bits without significant investment.  

	Some of the value these machines had was in perceptions.  This 
	intangable yet required image of confidence, self assured, and moving 
	forward product line.  We have 64 bits and we are not afraid to let 
	you play with them.  Helps clear the FUD.  I use it in this way in my 
	conversations with vendors who do not yet have an AXP platform product. 
	'Go ahead and check it out.  Here's the URL.  Yes, there out there for 
	you.  Oh and have you heard about Freeport?  No?  Here is that pointer,
	too... '  

        I think these systems made a positive statement about the AXP systems
        and Digital.  They (Freeport and the Internet AXPs) made my recent 
	vendor conversations fun.  

        Dave

Past few: 
	The issues you mentioned are legitimate concerns. .26 is correct
	in stating that all the issues have been around and are on going, 
	except the support issue has been around since day one also, and
	could be on going if the program lives.

	SUPPORT:
	Support has always been an issue for the program. The program was
	started with local support, in Palo Alto, then shifted to Colorado,
	then back again to Palo Alto. It's difficult to find a dedicated
	support person. Most times the support was given to a support group, 
	with them not knowing it would be a full time job. The management would
	give it to someone who was already busy. 
	
	Doing remote system management on these machines was the pits. It's 
	been done in the past and it turned out to be a very bad solution. 
	The machines need to be located where the support staff is located so 
	they can reach the system when there are problems.

> Did we achieve our goals with these systems?

	You must ask yourself, how many Alpla's did these systems sell for us? 
	Millions of $$$ when Gail Grant was keeping track. Did it off set the 
	people using them for mail accounts, YOU BET. 

> Is this advertising (that's what it really is) getting to the desired
	market and contact person?

	We, engineering, use to give out business cards with the Internet 
	address on them, at trade shows and events. If the person was not 
	technical, we would tell them to give the card to the responsible 
	person who would do the evaluations. So yes, most times it would be 
	the desired market and contact person. The sales force, as you know,
	also used them the same way.


> Can we afford to continue with evaluation systems on the Internet? Can we
	afford not to?

	Is that footsteps I'm hearing?

	This would just be the time HP would put an R8000 on the Internet for 
	a test drive and tell everyone, "We're the only ones doing it", and
	once again someone will steal our thunder...
	

    I'm finding the support issue raised in the .27 message a bit
    confusing.  My understanding is that the Palo Alto support
    contract was written explicitly for part-time support.  
    

    .27 Should have read PA-8000 from HP, not R8000, which is a MIPS chip
        from SGI. Sorry.

    .29 Yes, if the systems aren't busy, and all the firmware, O.S.,
    layered product software, and hardware is up to date, then yes, it could 
    be a part-time support effort. It's when the systems start getting
    loaded with lots of users who have many request, and you start running out
    of disk space... That's just a few examples of what I was told by some of
    the system managers who were supporting them in the past. Don't get me
    wrong, they did a great job!
    
    According to the reports I received, the volume of users for the past year 
    and a half wasn't what it was. So yes, I believe support could be handled 
    part-time with that volume. But is that what we want? Have we, Digital, 
    really tried? And I'm not talking about the people who have put a lot of
    energy into the program, I'm talking about the lack of funds, upgrades,
    announcements and support throughout Digital. 
    
          
     

    Is this the same story as in .5, or not ? I'm confused.

    
    	The barbie is fired up and ready....
    
    	Simple solution. You have the SBU fund and support the products
    THEY engineer, manufacture, and sell. They can fire three idiots in
    their mgmt ranks and be able to put five *modern* systems on the net
    with all three O/S, compilers, LinkWorks, Polycenter, etc.
    
    	Almost get tired of listening to the incredible stupidity of our
    marketing folks whose main focus in life appears to be trying to find
    their next job, instead of *doing* the one they have...
    
    		the Greyhawk

	Funny, how you critized every decision... But have
	not seen anyone volunteer to solve the problem..

	Some people have expressed interest, Why not the
	ones who doing all the talking ?

	Some marketing people really do care....
	

    Excuse me, but I'm one of the people who helped Gail Grant gather the 
    hardware, and software for the systems that were on the net. My group also
    came up with the idea for the Internet address business cards.
    Designing, printing, and have them distributed world wide. I also
    helped with getting the word out through our own internal press. We 
    spent many hours of our free time trying to promote and help the
    program. I gave up after beating my head against the wall trying to
    get different groups that should have been involved to do the right
    thing, HELP!
    
    Hopefully things have changed. Good luck.
   
    
    

	re: -.2

	I have a 3000 workstation in my office working with a number of 
	EDA vendors to Freeport their current Sun applications as they want 
	to sell something and my organization wants to buy the best tools to 
	get the job done.  My efforts have multiple justifications, but my 
	primary goal in this job is to assure Digital's Network Engineering 
	has the software tools to design the hardware available when they 
	need them (at the best price).  It makes good sense for me to desire 
	Alpha based tools from a price basis, as we get the equipment at 
	reduced costs and the performance is better than alternatives.  I 
	can buy PC based tools (or even Sun or HP) if there is a justification 
	or the tool is required and only available ther.  I believe the 
	Engineering platform of choice is moving from Unix to NT (I hope), but 
	I believe the Alpha platform fits my needs better right now (but 
	that is another rate hole).

	I believe I am part the market demand the software vendors require 
	before they support another platform.  Some of this is vendor 
	perceptions helped along by Digital Marketing, I hope.  I have 'chicken 
	or egg' discussions with vendors every week.  I ask about their Alpha 
	version of the tool or what are their porting plans or offer time on 
	my machine with Freeport so we may evaluate the tool.  I liked the 
	ability to offer these people a 'neutral and safe' area their technical 
	people could evaluate the effects on their tools with little costs.  
	I cannot personally offer system support of other machines at remote 
	locations as I feel I am not fully qualified.  

	I want to be a good Corporate citizen and improve my stock's value, 
	but I need to do my job.  Network Engineering needs current tools 
	from the EDA market.  If the tools are not available on Digital 
	platforms then we will obtain the tools we need from an Intel or other 
	platform.  I am a customer giving intimate (and public) feedback to 
	Digital Marketing and Sales organizations.  I am a partner sharing the 
	effort required to build market demand and image of Digital's 
	products.  

	How may we work together to sell more Alpha's and get more EDA tools to 
	the market on this platform.

	Dave Atkinson
	Networks Engineering CAD Group

So who's Job/Development Plan has the Business Goal:  

    "Purchase, Install, and Support 21164-300/21164-333 based 'Internet Test
     Drive' sytems on or before XX-XXX-XXXX date."

Can the person responsible for this Business Goal please address the issues
raised in this thread?  

If nobody in the corporation has this business goal, then I think it's a
reasonable thing for some senior manager and/or VP to consider adding to their
Job/Development Plans.  Posting a list of tasks and resources that will
accomplish this goal will alleviate a lot of the frustration.


- jeff