I have just read the latest 22 messages for this thread produced today.  I
am baffled by some of the logic being used to justify migration and the
selection of solutions.  I think more thought needs to be given to strategy
with regard to the following:

For instance -

Al Karman wrote:
>the economics of pumping $$$ into a 30+ year old proprietary OS in an
>increasingly 'open' world is questionable.

I am always stunned to hear references to this trite statement about "30
year old proprietary OS's" as though it was common wisdom.  This usually is
accompanied by references to "modern UNIX"  --  such as the very
proprietary HP-UX which actually has roots that are even older than MPE.
If you want to talk about an old proprietary OS, lets talk about HP-UX
(AIX, SOLARIS, et al)  --  the systems everyone is being encouraged to jump
to.  Even the latest wonder product, LINUX, although not proprietary, is
not really standardized either, and still has those same old roots.  (If I
change my LINUX and you change yours, then that adds 2 more flavors to the
world.  By the way, how does an HP or IBM support that anyway?)  And as far
as VERY proprietary goes, lets not forget that other great alternative
solution family: Windows.  You can count on any release of Windows being
supported for almost 2 years before having to migrate to the next one. :-)

MPE has stability, a file system, device handling and job handling features
that a UNIX or Windows user can only dream about.

If I understand Al's comment correctly, he must reject all UNIX (because it
is old) and all Windows (because it is proprietary).  So where does this
take us Al?

Duane Percox wrote:
>That is why the open source movement on ish (industry standard h/w)is so
>strong. You don't become beholden to any particular vendor for decisions
>that might affect your business.

(I think he must mean hardware here, because he will end up using somebodys
software that is important to him that will not be free our have an open
license.)

In the August 2002 edition of The HP3000 NewsWire, Duane was quoted in the
Eloquence article to say:
>"... that he's got no reservations about offering his customers a solution
>built upon a database with a small customer base.  The 12 years of
>Eloquence's history seem to mean more than its 2000 users  --  given their
>long-term existing user community."

The above 2 comments by Duane indicate that he may not have thought out his
strategy completely.  In particular, if HP is ready to dump IMAGE and
HP3000 (IMAGE) talent is getting hard to find for users (who wants to
invest their career in an obsolete technology?), then why will Eloquence go
on to a glorius future?  There are already a lot more SQL programmers than
IMAGE/Eloquence programmers and I would expect this gap to widen in the
future.

Even its creator describes Eloquence as a "permanent temporary solution".
To put it another way, Eloquence is a niche product attempting to emulate
(perhaps fully someday) a product declared obsolete by its creator (HP).
What is to prevent HP & defacto industry trends from abandoning this too?
Seems to me that he is once again opting for a solution that someone else
(or the market place) will control.

Duane seems to take comfort that Eloquence has been around for 12 years.  I
say, so what?  IMAGE was around for 30 years and that didn't seem to help
it much.

My point here is not to berate Eloquence, it is probably a good stepping
stone on the way to something else.  But rather, to point out that no
matter how hard you try, you will always end up getting involved with a
vendor or technology or a standard that is subject to change and ultimately
beyond your control.

--------------------------------

I would like to make one more observation.

I have noted that a number of members on this list who are running HP3000's
on behalf of their companies do not seem to have any formal support (from
HP or others) based on some of the questions that are asked.  In other
words, the prospect of HP eventually eliminating support for MPE/IMAGE
should not have much impact on them since they are comfortable running
without it now.  I think the very stable nature of MPE (and the hardware)
allows this strategy to work.  (I can understand some top management and
auditors getting freaked about it though.)  My point is that HP has created
a good enough product that traditional considerations about support seem to
be much less of a concern than for other products (UNIX, Windows).  So the
prospect of losing HP's support of the product is not as much of a
motivation for jumping on the migration bandwagon.

Finally, I have had some experience with this prospect this week.  My SE
for our 3000 and 9000 systems was selected for termination last Monday in
HP's down-sizing movement.  She has been with HP for 18 years and our SE
for about 15 years and has done a terrific job.  I have been told that HP
is reducing the field support staff by 25%  --  much more than the general
10% reduction that the 15000 figure represents!  Furthermore, there is
apparently just 1 SE left who is certified to support this area for the
HP3000.  I am talking about Los Angeles, California folks, not some small
village!

John Wolff

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