Hello Friends:

Mike Paivinen wrote:

>I interpreted his statement to mean that if MPE/iX were available as
>open source, then Tufts itself did not have the means, interest, or
>technical background to make the modifications that they might need
>in the future as their business evolves.

That's the way I intepreted his statement, too. He seems to see
anything other than the status quo as too experimental, and involving
too much of his organization's time. Might be interesting to ask him
how much staff time is devoted to managing Windows changes. I
suggested the prospect of having MPE cared for by someone other than
HP might not be any scarier than using Linux.

Like so many customers, folks like this VP at Tufts are going to look
at the future of "no HP development on MPE past 2006" and think of
that future as OPEN SOURCE. They will think of Linux -- and probably
Linux in its days before Red Hat got into the distribution game.
Pretty experimental times, those. Not a generous comparison.

But there is a similarity that I was trying to point out. You've
really got no vendor standing behind Linux today like HP stood behind
MPE. In 2007, will either environment have a manufacturer or a lab
like HP's or Microsoft's? Sorry, John, but Red Hat is in business to
build a support practice, and the fees for Red Hat support keep
escalating. I don't see them as having a lab enhancing Linux like MPE
was once enhanced by HP. IBM and HP are enhancing Linux, I suppose.
But that puts you back in the hands of a single vendor, doesn't it?
Not much independence there.

My point was really that there's another future out there for MPE
other than OPEN SOURCE. In this future, HP puts the source code in
the hands of a virtual lab, managed and funded by OpenMPE or some
other organization. The source code is carried forward, with
enhancements, so the environment can continue to improve. And folks
like the VP's company write their support checks to the likes of
Beechglen, and pay to belong to OpenMPE -- so they can get
enhancements when the virtual lab tests and certifies them. The
enhancements are separated from HP, to hold it harmless. I'm sure
there's a lawyer out there who could draft a contract that would
protect both HP and the customers, so they could get another version
of MPE beyond 7.5.

We don't get anywhere near that future (it doesn't sound so bad, does
it?) until HP agrees to move the source code to the virtual lab. It's
going to take awhile to get familiar with a suite of programs that
big. The expertise is still available, but who knows for how much
longer?

What harm comes from an "HP Intends" document that covers moving the
source outside HP? Such a document is no more binding than the one
the community has been reading since February about emulator licenses
for MPE. That was a draft, if I recall. What is the news in the
succeeding six months about changes to the document? Any schedule on
when another draft will appear?

Of course, HP won't move that source code into a virtual lab until
somebody asks them to do this. A customer, OpenMPE, somebody. This is
much more essential to the homesteading customer's future than
wringing hands over whether there's going to be enough market for an
emulator. For the next three years, there's going to be plenty of
3000 hardware available. MPE development outside HP needs to start as
soon as HP will allow it to begin.

And so we return to the rubbing point of the homesteader's life. Or
as Mike put it, "I do think he's saying that his business plans
cannot wait for that to happen." It's a matter of waiting, isn't it?
And each week that ticks away with no firm post-2006 MPE future puts
another customer like those at Tufts or IES onto the migration path.
In the end, a computer customer wants somebody to be responsible:
Microsoft, Red Hat (through support), HP. Giving OpenMPE a chance to
be responsible -- well, that's something HP can do for the 3000
community. Maybe HP is waiting for OpenMPE to mount a membership
drive with skin in the game (revenues via fees), so OpenMPE can fund
its virtual lab. How else can HP decide if moving the source will be
in the customers' best interest?

--

Ron Seybold, Editor In Chief
The 3000 NewsWire
Independent Information to Maximize Your HP 3000
http://www.3000newswire.com
512.331.0075 -- [log in to unmask]