HP3000-L Archives

June 2008, Week 5

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:
"Peter M. Eggers" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Peter M. Eggers
Date:
Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:17:35 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Ron Horner
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I thought that the great thing of the later versions of MPE was that it was
> POSIX compliant.  If that is the case, couldn't you just load the OS modules
> on to Linix?  Granted the hardware drivers would be different.

There are a number of good things about POSIX compliancy, especially
on Unix.  When from MPE, it adds complexity and more ways to screw
things up.  The underlying Linux is fully POSIX compliant and many,
many other good things.  You could also add Windows compliancy, MVS
compliancy, and so on.  But, integrating different designs necessarily
causes complications and trade-offs.

My point is to put a friendly MPE face on whatever is useful in Linux
and not to expose it directly.  Just add what you need to the API, and
write a MPE utility to access it, or integrate it into an existing MPE
utility.  The KISS principle.  MPE should be the quickest and easiest
way to solve  business information problems.  The more time spent on
technical details of the OS, the less focus and time spent on solving
the problem at hand.

My idea is that MPE should be focussed on solving business information
problems only.  The hardware and operating system details should be
handed off to Linux, running below and out of sight.

Pete

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2