Chuck Ryan wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Bixby [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 11:48 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] ask not what MPE can do for you, but what you
> > can do for MPE
> >
> >
> > First, take the time to play with POSIX.  There's more to MPE
> > these days than
> > just COBOL, Image, and VPLUS, and POSIX is truly the
> > foundation that allows
> > today's MPE to "play well" with other OSes and the Internet.
> > I know from
> > HP3000-L that people are still discovering POSIX, and that's
> > good.  But it
> > would be *great* if everybody had a least a little exposure.
> >
>
> While I agree that POSIX on the 3000 is a good thing, it does cause me some
> concern that the majority of work being done and new(??) applications
> appearing on the 3000 are open source ports from linux.
>
> If in the end our argument for keeping the 3000 relies on this, then how do
> we respond when asked to compare the cost/benefit of running POSIX apps on
> the 3000 vs an Intel (IA-64 or Pentium) based server running Linux?
>
> >From what I have seen the POSIX implementation on the 3000, while improving,
> is more limited than the Linux distributions available. Also, the apps
> available on the 3000 are usually 1 or more releases behind what is
> available on Linux.
>
> Taking the above, combined with the much higher cost of licensing/support on
> the 3000 and lack of support for a wide range of add-on hardware, I am not
> sure I could convince myself that it is a better solution than a Linux
> server for POSIX apps, let alone convince my management.
>
> How would you respond?

Simply, if you have a 3000 or intend to get one for other reasons AND
will
have excess capacity, then why get another box if the application,
through
the POSIX, facility, can be run on the 3000.

Put another way, it is the major application that usually determines the
choice of hardware and OS, but once there one wants to add other
applications.

Nick D.