Wirt writes:

<printer stuff, which I agree with, snipped>

> However, regarding the subject of third-party competition, I continue to
> stand by my comments regarding the odd notion that HP should maintain
> incompetent or incomplete FOS solutions as a method of protecting or
> preserving a third-party's niche. I consider that, if not rubbish, then
> outright nonsense. If CSY doesn't diligently work to produce the most
> excellent, the most capable, the most transparently simple system possible,
> then we will all lose, HP'er, consultant, vendor, third-party software
> developer, and end-user alike. Arguing for any other path is one that pushes
> us towards failure. The HP3000's sole claim to fame is its extraordinary
> reliability and simplicity of operation -- without excuses.

I have no argument with this statement at all.  I agree with this
wholeheartedly.  MPE should be the most robust operating system around, should
be simple to use and dependable; and should have a well rounded, stable and
dependable set of tools to complement it.  HP must provide this, and if
something inside the OS is broken, or one of the tools which comprise a basic
facility such as printing is not functioning as documented, it must be fixed
and made whole.  Wirt is correct in stating that if a printer with an internal
JetDirect card is causing problems with MPE's Network Printing, HP must address
this as this runs contrary with the MPE philosophy of having a robust OS and
subsystems.

When it comes to taking it up a notch though, there will always be a third
party, to find a way to build a better mousetrap.  Someone always will, whether
it be at the OS level, the tools department, or vertical applications (where we
need it the most, IMHO).

What I was trying to say earlier, with examples, is that no one company can be
all things to all people.  The cannot do it all...there's just no way.  I hate
to use this cliche, but maybe it applies here:  "It takes a village" - and we
are all that village.  No one company can satisfy everyone's insatiable
appetite for more and more.  If people expect HP to "provide everything" - they
are dreaming.

(Why were the POSIX ports made for BIND, Syslog, sendmail, CVS, Samba, etc.?
To take advantage with the POSIX compliancy of MPE and to give MPE users what
Unix users have had all along.  Does anyone think that HP would have done this?
Maybe... but when?  The individuals that did this work took the initiative, did
it, and gave us all functionality that is now making it into FOS - but they
were not done through CSY funding nor were they projects that initially went
through the MR channels that MPE subsystems normally encounter.  The ones
included in FOS do go through these channels now.)

Why was Adager written?  I think that's pretty clear.  The alternative
(DBUNLOAD and DBLOAD) was not acceptable.  Should HP have written something
like Adager, back in the 70s?  Probably.  Did they?  No.  So the Adager
Corporation was born.  They built the better mousetrap.  Did they do it to rob
HP of a utility?  No.  They saw a need, they fulfilled that need - and it was a
"need" - not a "want".

Yes, someone or some company (collectively, a "third party"), will find a way
to make some existing functionality better, or find that killer application
that's needed, and make it available.  In other words - build the better
mousetrap.


Regards,
Joe