Ahh, but this goes against the very reason it was not marketed. It was not
supposed to compete in any way with HP-UX. Otherwise, MPE would be the flag
ship and HP-UX would be getting the axe.

That whole better mouse trap thing is bogus. If people don't know there's a
better mouse trap, they can't beat that path to your door. Then it becomes a
point of what you can convince them is better.

Remember the joke about M$ not being able to take one bit of competition?
Makes me wonder about the HP-UX team.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John R. Wolff" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: Unix to Unix Translators & Rosetta Stones


> On Thu, 16 May 2002 14:17:00 -0700, John Clogg <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> >As has been noted here many times, there is a lot to be said for an OS
that
> >doesn't lock you into a single vendor's hardware and for which there
exists
> >a wide selection of tools and applications.  An open, multi-platform OS
is
> >really a good idea.  It's just a shame that the industry seized on Unix
as
> >the answer to that need.  We can all look forward to the day when a
really
> >good OS will emerge to fill that role.  I suspect it will look familiar
to
> >those of us who know MPE.
>
> HP blew it big time!
>
> What they should have done with MPE is license it to anybody (like AT&T
did
> with UNIX).  They would have made more money from the licenses than they
> ever did from their lousy marketing efforts which carried it to the grave.
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

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