HP3000-L Archives

September 1997, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Doug Werth <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Doug Werth <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:30:02 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
I wrote:

> Not at all for 2 reasons. First, according to Ron Seybold's HP 3000
Newswire
> article, it is only being offered to registered HP Channel Partners.
Second,
> it will only have an 8-user license. Each socket connection to a web
server
> would count as a user under the current rules. I don't believe a web
server
> with no more than 8 simultaneous hits would  be considered "fully
> functional."

And I was wrong. It was pointed out to me that socket connections don't
count against the user license. I hate it when somebody spreads false
information, especially when its me. :)

I do stand by my original statement, though. As it is described it logically
would not make a good Web server. (Physically it would provided the 918 CPU
has enough horsepower for the application in question.)

This box was in direct response to a plea from the community to spur
software development and make it affordable. That is why it is only offered
to members of the software providers program. The beauty of the deal was the
*software* package that comes with it. It really makes very little
difference if it is on a 918 box or a 917.

There is no technological breakthrough that made this machine possible. It
was a mental breakthrough on the part of HP. This machine is geared toward
developers who want to get back to HP's roots and build it "in the garage."
Just like Bill and Dave.

Many sites already have a second smaller machine with a smaller user license
where they do their development. They pay lower fees for the compilers and
development tools (i.e. Cognos et al) and move the compiled programs to or
have a runtime license for a production machine.

If there is enough demand for a low end HP 3000 Web Server then we should
ask HP for an entirely different product (maybe a 918/WS???) that would fit
the bill nicely. And HP and all of the other vendors that graciously kicked
into the deal wouldn't be giving the cow away with the milk.

Just my opinion. I'm sure there are others.

Doug Werth
Beechglen Development Inc.
[log in to unmask]
513.922.0509

ATOM RSS1 RSS2