Hello Joe,
> Hey Scott. You say you're here to "learn". Here's a start for you.
> Maybe you'll better understand why we shareholders are frustrated
> and take this back to the PTB at Headquarters.
Thanx ... I hadn't seen this article yet (being on vacation my March issues were all at the office or home!)
What I see is a journelist writing and article to indicate that the marketing and release schedule has not been clearly made public. (Remember that customers under NDA won't comment by name to the press.)
And it appears that the project (code name "Moab") "will be discussed at Brainshare later this month". Other than that I see much speculation and heresay. Oh yeah ... this is like the annoucement that "WolfPack" will not ship as promised ... well, not quite. I don't see anything other than "will be discussed at Brainshare later this month."
Oh, and I noticed the "related" articles are from November and last June. Uh, related by what? Same author? (P.S. I don't have anything against Ms.Fisher ... she has written some very timely articles!) I see a fishing expedition before Brainshare ...
{article deleted}
> Now, when you put all three stories together, at least "I" can't
> blame the press for biased reporting. I sure as hell looks to me
> like Novell doesn't know what's it's doing.
Well ... three spanning one year, almost.
> What do you see happening (as you say in one or two of your
> responses upthread) that is "changing"? I don't see anything
> changing. You also say, to paraphrase "it would take much longer to
> turnaround with a new CEO/BOD because of the major reorganizations,
> etc., etc."
Uh, I don't believe that I said that. I have asked several times for an answer to a "simple" question. I don't know how long it would take. I have also said *that* several times. I was hoping a reorganization / merger / aquisitions specialist on this list would step forward and give me, the shareholder, an answer.
If you aren't seeing the changes, then market visability is a problem.
> Again, Scott, I'm paraphrasing you, but that's how I interpreted
> you. I disagree. I think a turn-around can be done "laser quick",
> "WITH" the right people in place. It will only take long if the
> corporate BS mentality allows it. ANYTHING can be done Scott.
> ANYTHING. As long as people are committed to doing it.
I agree that anything can be done. We humans are a pretty amazing species! But when you state "laser quick" I'm curious about the process that ensues. One month for physical moving, reading up on company details. Two months of meetings with upper managment to determine the "state of the machine" and the capabilities. This might/might not be enough time for a technological analysis of the development groups and the feasibility research to determine if the new direction is even possible. I'm not looking at creating endless paperwork and procedure ... two months is a pretty quick amount of time to understand the personalities and culture in the groups. After this the development / direction change starts and getting a fully tested, documented, packaged product into the channel could take (?) six months? I don't know. That's 9+ months? Anyone with input?
> If you went to the same Microsoft Seminar that I did, as you said I
> did, then you know damn well what I'm talking about.
It's like watching an artist ... they are impressive ... but not alone!
> Well, I'm getting long-winded here, but I hope SOMEONE fills us in
> on the developer interest at the "Internet World" show starting
> tommorrow in Los Angeles, and of course, Brainshare 97, the
> following week.
Yes ... more input from the outside!
> My money is on IBM bailing you guys out by adopting NDS. FWIW.
Well ... it would be very nice! And *I* think it would be good for IBM also!
>Regards,
>
> Joe... |
