Talk:Sequent Computer Systems

Untitled
At http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040207022922296 there is a comment with a link to this article - change view to nested, search for Wikipedia. Site is about SCO related stuff. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp    02:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An key part of Sequent was the corporate culture, driven in large part by the corporate vales.

Edw 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)edw@thewrightsplace.us

Our Values:

Easy to Do Business With

The Customer ALWAYS Comes First Do All We Can to Ensure Customer Success - Does Not Always Mean Saying Yes Three Keys -- Listen, Consider and Act Go the "Extra Mile" for the Customer

Profitability

Required for Our Success Allows for Growth & Investments for Future Everyone is Responsible for Profitability Follow the "Spend Smart and Invest Smart" Concept

Teamwork

Strong & Balanced Teams Put Group Goals & Interests Ahead of Personal Reward Open & Honest Communication You're Accountable for Your Commitments Nobody Wins Unless the Team Wins

Quality

Exceed the Customer Expectations Strive for Continuous Improvement in All You Do Know Who Your Customers Are Establish Clear Mutually Acceptable Expectations Managed Expectations, Consistently Achieved

People

Assimilating & Integrating New Members is Critical Open, Honest & Timely Communication Treat Each Other With Respect Take Time to Say "Thank You" for a Good Job Strive for Win-Win Relationships

Sequent Principles:

Act With Honesty & Uncompromising Integrity Take Responsibility for Our Customers' Success Strive to be the Best Have a "Can Do" Attitude Respect Each Other Exhibit Team Pride Take Calculated Risks Be Active Community Citizens Urgently Do the Right Thing Make Consultative Decisions

Clean up
This article needs to be gutted if no sources are cited. It looks like some sort of blog and seems rather long for a short lived company. Also the opening paragraph is far too long. Aboutmovies 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wrote this article after extensively researching the topic. The only reason that there aren't refs is because there was no ref requirement or system in place at the time. You don't erase valid content just because it doesn't meet changing formatting requirements! I really don't understand what led you to conclude it looks like a blog. And the opening paragraph is two sentences long. I don't want to sound whiny, but you'll need to be more specific in what you think the problems are. Maury 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The link in this Sequent Computer article for Casey Powell to Wikipedia's "Casey Powell" is not the correct Casey Powell. The existing link is for a Lacrosse player who graduated from Syracuse in 1998. I am sure a fine young man.

The Casey Powell who was CEO and Chairman of Sequent Computer graduated from King's Point in 1966. A good and current bio for this (Sequent's) Casey Powell can be found on the Xiotech website at

http://www.xiotech.com/About_Directors.aspx

More Clean up
The link to "Scott Gibson" late in the article is also not the correct Scott Gibson. "C. Scott Gibson" is the appropriate individual and a bio can be found here --> http://www.radisys.com/corporate/management.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.161.179 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Project.monterey.jpg
The image Image:Project.monterey.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All good things must end
As a very early employee I can attest that this was one of the most utterly top quality and classy companies ever - right up until we went public. A publicly traded company cannot adhere to such values as "Act With Honesty & Uncompromising Integrity". None do. The "winners" are the ones who can figure out how to maintain that illusion while engaging in their skullduggery. Sequent lost, but I'm sure Casey and Scott did fine out of it. FatBear1 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WinServer range
I worked on the NT support side at Sequent 1993-95 I'll see if I can write up the WinServer range as they were briefly the leaders in SMP with Windows NT

From memory WS500 dual proc Intel OEM tower pc WS3000 (rebadged Tricord?) 6 cpu cards   486DX266 and later Pentium 100+130? WS6000 One of the Sequent unix model with vga card etc (a very non-PC design and amazing they got NT to run on it)

The end of the proprietary 'super-server' is documented here http://www.networkcomputing.com/616/616f1.html http://news.cnet.com/Superservers-near-death/2100-1001_3-279102.html

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sequent Computer Systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ibm.com/systems/info/x86servers/ex5/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828092637/http://www.wweek.com/html/business092299.html to http://www.wweek.com/html/business092299.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncited information
Sequent was an important computer design and manufacturing company in its time and one which really advanced computing technology fast and far. Sixteen years as an independent company and 5 or more after purchase from IBM is no small feat for a startup company in the world of large corporate computers. But as a long defunct company it will probably never have a formal history written, so it is hard to quote citations for many facts. And yet they are facts. How does Wikipedia deal with this dilemma? If a person was there and reports it, it is considered "original research" or some nonsense like that and is not allowed. But there may sometimes be no other source to cite for such facts. If I were to write the history of Sequent, publish it (without peer review) and then quote and cite it, that would apparently be fine. So how about if I were to write a fact HERE in the talk section and then quote that? What's the difference? It's still a fact and in a publicly accessible published source (this talk) which can be cited. It's just something to think about.

An example might be Zeke. Early on the article states that the company was formed from 17 Engineers and Executives from Intel, plus one other. That one other was Zeke, whose real name was Bohdan Yuri Tashchuk (you can see why he went by Zeke.) Later the article mentions the ZDC board - Zeke's Disk Controller. (He also designed the original memory boards and probably other components that I don't remember.) Originally the Balance systems were intended to be sold as "engines" via OEM channels. When that concept didn't work out, the ZDC was important in that it allowed the creation of fast disk farms and entry into the corporate world. ZDC was the internal designation, but Marketing thought they were too sophisticated for that. Many customers were already aware of (and using) the ZDC before it was released, so it was released as the DDC - Dynamic Disk Controller - in order to be fancy sounding and yet as close to ZDC as possible.

This example offers no useful facts for the history of computing, but it is factual and does demonstrate how the human mind works in the corporate environment. So I think it is useful to maintain this anecdote for posterity. Having grown up with real encyclopedias (World Book and Britannica) I think this kind of information is appropriate for wikipedia as well. In fact, it is the opportunity for the actual participants in history to give their own perspective on it that gives Wikipedia the potential to be so much more than the old school encyclopedias. Think if Thomas Jefferson could have added his comments to the Britannica article on the Constitution. I'm not equating myself or anyone from Sequent to Jefferson, but it illustrates that the history of this company is known best by those who lived it. And while it might be appropriate for an outsider to format the article in a Wiki-like manner, it would be irresponsible to leave out facts which are stated by those who know them, just because they were not written down somewhere by someone who might or might not know anything at all about them. FatBear1 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey FatBear, I just saw this post now. I'm speaking as one who has been on the same side of this issue as you, so...
 * The key to your post, as I see it, is "and then quote and cite it, that would apparently be fine". In a word, no. The issue is that the source, wherever it might be, has to fit two smell-tests, 1) the source is not here, 2) the source has some reason to be believable. I personally would add a third, 3) the quality of the source is related to the controversy of the statement - if the statement is about the length of an airplane, you don't need a PhD author to trust it. No one else agrees with that last one.
 * In this case, we have the issue of Zeke. It fails all three of my smell-tests. As it stands, it has to go. As you say, it may be that his story will not be written elsewhere. Or not. Which brings us to...
 * As you point out, this might eliminate all sorts of factual information on the wiki. That's absolutely true. And sad in some cases. But consider the flip side, if we didn't have some standard the wiki would be filled with garbage and the most aggressive editors would always win. Those would be the people in Russia being paid to do so.
 * Which is the bigger problem, Zeke's history not being recorded here or the destruction of the very reason we all read the wiki in the first place? Easy decision in my books. And as I said, this can lead to problems, much bigger than this one, like the almost-removal of Star Trek (1971 video game). Yes, THAT one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)