Hi folks,
[DISCLAIMER: - I'm currently working on subcontracts to both HP and
Speedware, but I am not an employee of, nor do I speak for either. This is
all my personal $.02 and your mileage may vary]
1) MPE is not dead (yet). I see too many customers (not the least of which
are parts of HP itself internal) still on the HPe3000 who are seriously
considering homesteading as an option. There are even rumored tales of
projects at HP to retain the 3000 internally for as long as 2015 (or
longer). As far as future development, &c, that's a different issue - we
already know how that's been scaled back. Fortunately, the OS is much more
mature and stable than many (which is part of why we like it, yes?)
2) There is life after the 3000. MPUX and Speedware's AMXW provide
extremely nice MPE-like environments and associated wrappers to leverage off
MPE skill sets while enhancing them with Unix and/or Linux tools and
functionality (talk about best of both worlds and great cross-over learning
opportunities). There are other alternatives as well.
3) I'm personally finding a about a 30%/70% split between HPe3000 in-house
development projects and out-and-out migrations. However, most sites today
are a mix of MPE and non-MPE applications, sizing and placing where the
resources are best suited for the task (for example, does ANYONE still use
HPSLATE for their world processing? <G>)
4) Realistically, HP likely has several motivations to get OpenMPE (or
someone) designated as recipient/standard bearer for future MPE, and an
equal number of motivations for delaying that announcement (or commitment)
as long as possible. FWIW, many of the HP people OpenMPE deals with are
themselves somewhat caught in the mechenations of HPs internal process
regarding this. I'm betting the business/legal issues far outweigh the
technical considerations at this point.
5) I suspect open source for MPE is an unrealistic goal. I personally do
not see HP releasing MPE to any entity without sufficient resources
available and committed to making it (MPE) successful - from their
perspective, it's probably better to let it die outright while it's still
well thought of. I know part of OpenMPE's considerations has been a funding
model that requires a critical mass of companies to commit to jointly cover
costs and resources in taking over MPE in order to be viable (that may have
changed since I last saw data on it - perhaps the board can comment).
6) The recent angered and mean spirited discourse on this list is really an
unprofessional waste of time and energy. If you consider MPE dead, great! -
move on, do something else, and please vent somewhere else. If you consider
MPE worth trying to continue, great! - get involved with OpenMPE or any
other effort which you will help (renew your certification if you've got
one), and work with MPE customers - they're out there and looking for
resources. Frustrations on this process and the disruption to our own
businesses or careers aside, bashing each other and/or HP with all this
vitriol accomplishes nothing (neither side will convince the other, nor does
it need to), other than increase the noise level on the list. I'm all for
open discussion, but I'd prefer it be constructive.
My personal kudos to the OpenMPE board and those note individuals trying to
move this forward.
[There - now *I'VE* vented]
Thanx, Ric
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Goldman Phone: +1-650-326-6478
Spellbinder Systems Group Fax : +1-309-422-4321
Palo Alto, California 94306-2436 [log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Schwartzman, Zelik
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: {Scanned} Re: OpenMPE - funeral or future?
>
> Peter
> I concur. All those folks who keep on saying MPE is "dead
> dead dead" and
> throw up artificial barriers...well those folks should be off
> the OPENMPE
> list. They don't believe in the future of mpe or the likes.
> I for one am
> not ready to give up the ship. Those who are can jump in the
> lake (or the
> ocean as it were).
>
> I for one have way too much time and effort invested on this platform.
>
> Zelik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Pete
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: OpenMPE - funeral or future?
>
> Well I have certainly heard from the vocal minority!
>
> I had the impression that OpenMPE was about open systems and taking
> MPE forward. Maybe I was wrong. Or, maybe the silent majority is
> afraid to speak, I don't know.
>
> First I was told how my ideas wouldn't work, sometimes with arguments
> that had nothing to do with what I was suggesting. Then, magically
> links to commercial solutions appeared that seem to do similar things
> to what I proposed, or in the case of MPUX, seems to be almost
> identical. Well, I guess I wasn't too far off base to begin with.
>
> So, at least at this point, there is no reason why OpenMPE is not
> technically possible as an environment running on top of a Linux
> distribution on any server hardware sold. I do not see this being
> viable as a closed source commercial product. Maybe I am wrong there,
> but my experience with both tells me that this is the only viable
> solution for an OpenMPE.
>
> There have been a number of statements about Linux, and how OpenMPE
> would impact Linux that are just not true. Why? I can only imagine.
> Seems as though there are ulterior motives, and that a successful
> OpenMPE would hurt their conversion business. All I know is that they
> are very negative about MPE. So why are they on a list of what they
> describe as dead software, and then bother to waste their time arguing
> for its death? To pick over the bones? Why don't they move on?
> There is a reason, and besides making money off the death of MPE, what
> other reason is there?
>
> I can't say I don't like making money, because I do. But, I also see
> the value of open source in creating infrastructure. It is part
> barter and part ego boost for techies. The barter part is that I give
> you my improvement and 10, 100, or a 1000 other techies give me
> theirs. Plus, if you are a techie, it is not bad to have your name
> listed in a successful software product. Also, there are many people
> making money on "free" Linux, including companies like HP and IBM,
> where it is a strategic OS. There could be many commercial
> applications built on top of an open source OpenMPE, besides inhouse
> development.
>
> If you are interested in the SUCCESS of OpenMPE and believe, or at
> least interested in the possibility, of creating an MPE user mode
> environment on top of Linux, let me know, either on or off list. If
> there is enough interest, I will put together an initial design for
> perusal and subsequent modification.
>
> - Pete
>
>
>
> THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ADDRESSEE(S) AND MAY CONTAIN
> CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED
> RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE OF THIS
> INFORMATION OR DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS
> E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS
> E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN
> E-MAIL AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE.THANK YOU.
>
>
>
|
