I offered my opinion before the update on 3000-L

http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0403e&L=hp3000-l&F=&S=&P=3459

Having read the update from Mike, two things stand out for me.

I think that it is nice that HP are reconsidering allowing 9000 to 3000
conversions.  The arguments for the delay in announcing HP's willingness
to "open up" MPE by providing modification and release rights for the MPE
source code, however, fall flat.

As I mention in my posting noted above, HP seems to have little or no
interest in actually providing an "open" version of MPE.  I see Mike's
message as an attempt to placate the 3000 community without actually
having to do anything.

Let me take Mike's points in turn.

"First, we need to complete significant planning and investigation before
we can make a decision."

You've had since November 2001 (I think) when this idea was brought forth
on 3000-L.  In fact, you guys could have come up with this idea and begun
discussions before you announced EOL.  You haven't used the time because
other things were more important.  Why should any other length of time
provide different results?

"Second, there are many business factors to be evaluated and balanced
before making this decision."

You've had the time.  See above.

"Third, no one can predict how the e3000 landscape will change between now
and the end of 2006.  Making this decision closer to the time of
implementation provides greater degrees of freedom in selecting the
optimal solution.  It avoids locking in an inappropriate decision
prematurely or mis-setting expectations."

Or setting any expectations at all.  While this statement may or may not
be true, the longer we wait to let folks know their options, the more
likely they are to come up with their own.  Waiting until 2005 lets HP
select their optimal solution, but it is entirely likely that other folks
will have to commit to less optimal solutions in the meantime simply to
ensure they achieve a stable, supportable system beyond 2006.  As far as
making an inappropriate decision, I would suggest that HP's failure to put
forth a good-faith effort to get these issues resolved in a timely fashion
is what is inappropriate.


On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:43:10 -0500, Ron Seybold <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Here's the new talking point. What do the community members on this
>list think about HP's April 9 communique? Isn't this more important
>than the details of an NDA? HP has actually said something new on the
>OpenMPE mission for the first time in more than a year. Is anyone
>encouraged? Or does the offer of cash to OpenMPE and a budget item at
>HP mean very little to you?