In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950131173411.8403A-100000@suma3>,
Andrew Gosling  <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Apologies if this topic has had an airing recently.
>
>Does anyone have experience of integrating similar HP-UX and MPE systems,
>and SunOS and MPE systems? I am interested to know generally if there is
>much less of a development effort with the choice of HP-UX.
 
We have several 3000s and 9000s (800's) here and the developer's choice
is hands down HP-UX.  Having to work on the 3000 is generally look upon as
a fate worse than death.  HP-UX's operating system interface shells are far
more powerful (and far less proprietary) than MPE.  HP-UX has a real
directory structure MPE has no directory structure, but this is supposed
to get better when MPE becomes POSIX compilant (a retro fit which may or
may not go well).  The last time I checked, MPE would not even serve
X terminals without the help of a 9000.  The 9000's tend to run with
less operator intervention for longer periods of time.  For quite a while
now, every new box coming in here has been a 9000, where we used to be
a strictly 3000 shop.  This is a trend that I know the developers hope
continues.  The last time we checked the 3000 didn't support ftp or telnet,
but I think the POSIX version is supposed to?  There are other reasons to
choose HP-UX over MPE, but I'll refrain from wasting bandwidth :)
 
 
--
Craig D. Lansing ([log in to unmask])  | My opinions are not necessarily
METRO Information Services, Inc.        | those of my employer and are quite
Virginia Beach, Virginia USA            | often diametrically opposed to them.