Jon Backus posted on OpenMPE ([log in to unmask]):
*** Copied 3000-L because I don't recall if the DEC emulator company is on
the OpenMPE list. or not***
>       I'd like to have some discussion around the PA-RISC emulator.
Specifically
> the topic of ownership.  It boils down to if companies would prefer to pay
a
> "for profit" company to purchase the usage rights, going back into the
> proprietary arena.  After all, if a single vendor or company creates an
> emulator completely on their own, the own it.  They can charge what ever
> they want for it and if they decide to end it, or neglect it, they have
> complete freedom to do so.  Or, would companies prefer to have the
emulator
> owned and maintained by the community (meaning OpenMPE, which is owned by
> the community).  If they leave the community, they give up ownership.  If
> somebody new joins the community, they acquire ownership with there
> subscription.  As long as the community lives and dictated they want it,
the
> emulator lives.  Initially OpenMPE may outsource the emulator lab, but if
> the selected agent later decides they want to move on to other things (or
> retire), OpenMPE could simply out sources the emulator lab to somebody
else
> or take it in-house.
>       So, what are your thoughts on the subject?  Who would
> you prefer to "own"
> the emulator and why?  If you are a vendor, how do you feel about this
> approach?

Own *the* emulator?  Why only one?  I think there are two possibilities on
the table right now.  There is one that proposes building an emulation
product on top of Linux services.  This proposal has MPE coexisting with
Linux.  The other is a boot program that emulates the PA-RISC chipset.  This
proposal would get MPE, as is, running on Intel hardware.  And what if a few
HP engineers, who don't like the new HP Way, decides to go off and develop
an emulation product on their own.  Or HP spins off CSY (unlikely,
unless -jokingly putting on my conspiracy hat- Carly wants to punish Winston
for pissing off a bunch of customers before the merger vote.  ;-) )

As for ownership, I would let the vendors own their own work.  I would be
more than comfortable to let OpenMPE maintain a software escrow for the
vendors in the event they decided to get out of the business.  The
outsourcing approach indicates that OpenMPE would dictate rather than
suggest priorities and that may discourage some vendors who want to be in
the market.  Bill & Walter knew that you have to give people freedom to
innovate if you want a successful enterprise.

I just don't like business systems with a single point of failure.  Having
only one emulator would do that.  Sure, there's no guarantee that a vendor
will stick with a product, but there's no guarantee that OpenMPE will
survive forever either.  The more choices, the better.

If you belong to OpenMPE, please post replies there.  Thanks.




_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *