> If you're going to run a unix-like application under a
> hierarchical file
> system, posix-dominated environment, addressing a
> "mainstream" dbms, why
> bother with a 3000 at all? At that point, all you have left
> of the original
> HP3000 is the power cord and the nameplate -- but those two
> items alone will
> cost you a great deal more than if your nameplate said 9000
> instead, and
> would only be a fair-to-poor emulation of the environment you
> wanted in the
> first place.
>
> Wirt Atmar
>

Uh... you lost me?

As I understood it, HP added the integrated posix shell to encourage vendors
to port their applications to the HP3000. Very few vendors today are going
to create a major new application with only the HP3000 as their target
platform.

Do I, when using the posix shell, give up the proven reliability of the MPE
OS?

What is wrong with wanting to use the same server to run my legacy
applications as well as providing a dependable database server for my GUI
clients? Image, while an excellent dbms is still somewhat limited and
showing its age as a mature database product.

I will stop here, but I have to admit this response seems out of character
from what I have seen posted from you in the past. Perhaps I am
misinterpreting your comments?