wirt's comments on the multiple meanings of agnostic are accurate.
As I tried to thread my way through the semantics and the double
negatives I tripped over my own feet.     I'd like to revise my
statement to read:
"Saying that HP has an opinion about the most appropriate OS for a
given situation but then consistently naming only some of them seems
inconsistent.   The appearance again is that HP has an opinion as long
as the options are limited to HP-UX, Linux, or NT.   What about
MPE/iX?   From the comments one doesn't know."

Wirt picks out the irony in this.   In the literal meaning of the
word, much of HP seems to have "got religion" about HP-UX, Linux, and
NT but are agnostic about MPE/iX.

- Cortlandt

Wirt Atmar <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:39860022$1_2@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> Cortlandt writes:
>
> > 2.   The "operating system-agnostic" stance appears two faced.
> >  Saying that HP has an opinion about the most appropriate OS for a
> >  given situation but then consistently not saying the name of one
of
> >  the good options doesn't feel "agnostic" to me.    The appearance
> >  again is that HP is "agnostic" as long as the options are limited
to
> >  HP-UX, Linux, or NT.
>
> While "agnostic" has come to mean in modern vernacular usage
"noncommital,"
> that isn't what the word really means. In fact, it means
"unknowable" or
> "unknown" (Gk.: a- "non-" + gnostos "known"). In that very strict
sense of
> the word, the HP3000 seems to be the primary component of the
system-agnostic
> universe that Ann was talking about :-).
>
> Wirt Atmar
>