I don't think this is just an emotional reaction, but then what do I know.

As far as my last and only post on the subject, I got an off-list reply by
an old friend still inside HP and he said he thinks we may be right about
the "Die MPE Die" sentiment.

On the other hand, I hope this works out. Mpe on HP hardware, think about
it. Mpe/iX on a Jornada -- cool!

Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled, emotionally detached programming.

John Zoltak
North American Mfg Co
4455 East 71st Street
Cleveland Ohio 44105
216-206-5510



-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan M. Backus [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 2:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PA-RISC Emulator


        We seem to be getting back into emotional reactions rather then
business reactions.  The same thing happened in the OpenMPE session.  There
started to be much debate about how wrong this requirement was but when the
question was posed to the group of "emulator interested" people only about
five percent had a business reaction of "We are NOT interested if the
hardware MUST be HP."  The question isn't "Philosophically do you like the
restriction?".  The question is would you rather that MPE dies if this is
the only option?  Remember, HP owns MPE and has spent a fair amount of money
on maintaining and enhancing it over the years and HP (the company has made
their decision).  The people within HP that want to help us (AND THEY DO
EXIST) must build a business case for allowing something like this to
happen.  If part of that business case is a requirement that it run on HP
hardware, and that requirement helps to allow it to happen, then I (and
roughly 95% of the people in the OpenMPE session) consider that a
"live-able" solution.

        That is not to say that those of you that would refuse to use an
emulated PA-RISC environment under these requirements are wrong, just a
difference of what we are willing to accept and it's important to
understand, from a business prospective, that difference.

Thanx,
        Jon