News Stay informed about the latest enterprise technology news and product updates.

EqualLogic CEO staying on as Dell channel consultant

Don Bulens, the channel-friendly CEO of EqualLogic, is staying with Dell — for a little while.

Dell closed on its acquisition of EqualLogic last week, leaving Bulens’ role up in the air. But Dell kind of cleared things up during a media event today at EqualLogic headquarters in Nashua, N.H.’s Beth Pariseau was there, and she reports that Bulens will serve as a channel and customer-retention consultant. He’ll keep that role for at least three months, according to Brad Anderson, a Dell senior vice president and general manager.

Analysts at today’s event continued to question how Dell — which launched its first formal partner program in December — will balance the channel with its own history of direct sales. EqualLogic partners had enjoyed a healthy channel program and are especially concerned about Dell’s intentions. They hope to find out more tomorrow during a partners-only conference call with Dell execs.

Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

We actually have a matrix template of everything that can affect our platform. When we start designing our high level test plan we reduce it by removing everything that won't be affected. Next we review our finished matrix with Development before we start creating our actual test cases. We then narrow down further using the all pairs methodology. So far this seems to work pretty well.
It is somewhat interesting to associate pop psychology labels with what we've know about testing for over thirty years. However, I see that this view as more distracting than helpful. BTW - the term is "confirmation bias" (not congruence) - Taleb has a great discussion of this.

We've long known that bugs don't cooperate with your expectations and usually hide in non-obvious places, that there are an astronomic number of combinations of input and sequence to try, and that developers see what they want to see and usually neglect to provide robust code, let alone systems.

The only proven solution to these fundamental limitations is to use systematic test design strategies that are proven to have the best chance of revealing bugs. We know how to do this, although the siren song of developer arrogance/ignorance and no time/money for testing usually means more bugs are created and escape than are acceptable.

All this is only tangentially related to tester psychology - if you build a weak building, and either don't bother to check it or ask the builder if it is ok, it will collapse.