Ted Ashton wrote:

> I think it would be well for us not to get too fatalistic or cynical here.

and i'll add too fanatical....

> Carly, in private email, says that
> she hopes that she hopes that their investment will serve to reassure us as to
> their commitment.

(you got email from carly, ted???)

> Further, I'd like to make a quick comment to those who say, "HP is not
> committed to the 3000 because it takes a long time for MPE to support new
> hardware," particularly those who say that in the same breath with "the 3000
> is so incredibly reliable!"  Folks, the 3000 is reliable *because* CSY won't
> let something out of the lab until it has been sufficiently tested.  When the
> standard is as high as it is for MPE, that takes time.  It's no like whipping
> out code and dumping it on the market so that the market can test it.

absolutely!

i'll point out that year after year, csy is getting funded thru corporate hp.
they are continuing to exist as a viable business unit.  while i don't like --
anymore than anyone else -- that mpe is not getting mentioned at the corporate
level, i'll say:

          let's look at what hp (csy) is *doing* rather than what they're (not)
saying!

i understand 'our' frustration but i just don't think that taking out an ad is the
right thing to do.  i really do think there would be a downside.  while we may get
all sorts of attention -- will it be the attention that we want?  i don't think
so.  i think we'd only manage to humiliate (corporate) hp...and like i said before
i don't think the result will be what we want.

i'm surprised that no one has mentioned asking csy if there is anything we could
*collaboratively* do to help promote mpe.  csy certainly can/may say no, but i
think trying to work together -- towards the common goal of promoting mpe -- will
bring far superior results than being confrontational or
unprofessional.              - d

--
Donna Garverick     Sr. System Programmer
925-210-6631        [log in to unmask]

>>>MY opinions, not Longs Drug Stores'<<<