Jeff Kell wrote a very nice (and lengthy) posting discussing
various issues related to the HP3000, mpe and posix.
 
Thanks Jeff!
 
However, I don't personally believe that having a good posix
implementation on the 3k *guarantees* any additional ports of
software. I wonder what ever happened to that rumored Informix
port? It looks like software vendors are spending their energy
on NT, not other unix/posix options.
 
To me, posix is a reaction to the unix push, not a forward
thinking solution. NT is successful without posix. Netware has
a very large installed based without posix being an issue. How many
as/400's are sold because of posix support?
 
I still believe a Distributed Object Model for the HP3000 that
can run in the mpe and posix environs would create more possibilities
than posix. And it addresses the future of where I believe software
development is going.
 
The clients that connect to my distributed object server don't care or even
need to know what the underlying operating environment is. As long as I
can create these objects in an industry standard way.
 
As Jim W. points out, HP already has this technology (ORB+) which fully
supports the Corba 2.0 specs. Unfortunately it only runs on unix and NT.
Ditto for Distributed SmallTalk.
 
IMO (not humble) HP's refusal to get this technology on the HP 3000 indicates
either a lack of vision or a hidden agenda.
 
And if Harry Sterling and the gang really want to make the HP 3000 interoperate
in a heterogenous environment they can get there a lot quicker with
distributed objects a lot faster than anything else they can conjur up.
 
Jeff pushes for posix.
Duane pushes for distributed objects.
 
Wonder what HP pushes for.
 
Duane Percox  (QSS)
[log in to unmask] (415-306-1608, fax 415-365-2706)
http://www.aimnet.com/~qssnet/
 ftp://ftp.aimnet.com/pub/users/qssnet/
"The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas." -- Linus Pauling