I agree with Patrick.  Certainly, the "HP hardware" restriction only serves
to further alienate CURRENT HP customers (both hardware and software) and
make them LESS LIKELY to purchase HP products in the future.  HP really
seems intent on "burning its bridges".  Bill and Dave, you are sorely missed.

John

At 2002-09-27 05:43 PM, Patrick Santucci wrote:
>Jon Backus reports:
>
> > One requirement HP is placing on the licensing of MPE on an
> > emulatored PA-RISC environment is that it must be on HP hardware.
>
>First, Jon, thanks for the reports. Not being able to attend HPW, I really
>appreciate the updates and the chance to get caught up with what's going on
>in the OpenMPE world.
>
>Now to the point of my email: This requirement is asinine, imho. Why limit
>an emulator that way? To keep the emulator company from being more
>successful than HP at selling a box that can run MPE? One wonders.
>
>No. That "requirement" is absolutely, unequivocally, unacceptable!
>
>As Roy Brown pointed out, what constitutes HP hardware?
>  - The fact that HP sold you the box?
>  - What about a robust Compaq server, would that count? (I know,
>    you already said it would.)
>  - What if you bought the Compaq server *before* the merger?
>  - But if I have a Dell server, then it's, "Sorry old chap,
>    you'll have to cough up the money for something with 'HP'
>    written on it, even though it's pretty much the same inside
>    the box."???
>  - And what if the emulator is written in an easily portable
>    language and I persuade the emulator company to let me run
>    it on some flavor of 'nix, or one of the new Apple Xserve
>    servers, or a SUN box, or an AS/400, or <insert your favorite
>    alternate hardware here>, will HP sue??
>
>A PA-RISC emulator that runs MPE on "HP hardware only"??? PUH-LEAZE!!
>Doesn't that sound to anyone else too much like what we have *now* with MPE,
>an OS that runs on HP hardware only? It's "not open enough" -- that's the
>rap, right? Shouldn't we be trying to get *away* from that paradigm? Sheesh,
>HP, why not go all the way and require that a PA-RISC emulator must only be
>able to run on PA-RISC hardware? =:^O
>
>I think that one important goal of an emulator -- a strategic goal, if you
>will -- should be to make it possible to run MPE on *more* varieties of
>hardware, *not* less! Why not give the emulator (and the company that writes
>one) a *real* chance to catch on and be successful? Why this desperate need
>on HP's part for this kind of control? Why not let the *company writing the
>emulator* decide what hardware *they* will support it on? After all, they're
>the ones doing the work!
>
>I'm sorry, but this just sounds like HP wants to have their cake and eat it
>too (and make us pay for it!). This requirement makes about as much sense as
>the proposal to allow OpenMPE licenses to only be sold to those who already
>own an MPE license! "Die, MPE, Die!" is what HP still seems to be saying...
>
>My $0.02,
>Patrick - writing with NON-HP hardware!!!
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Patrick Santucci
>HP e3000 Systems Administrator
>Computer Operations Team Lead
>Cornerstone Brands, Inc.
>(std disclaimers apply, my opinions are my own, etc.)