At 01:08 PM 10/1/02 -0700, Mark Klein wrote:
>On 1 Oct 2002 at 15:46, Schwartzman, Zelik wrote:
>
> > I'd much rather keep this on a professional level however people like
> > yourself certainly deserve a few four letter words.  You belong in the
> > same loony bin with the folks that decided to kill the box in the
> > first place. "EMOTIONAL????  You bet your ass"
>
>Sorry, dude. You're yelling at the wrong person. You can use whatever
>four letter words you want, but I think you can't see the forest
>through the trees.
>
>I've got 27 years on the platform, and my desire is to retire, still
>working on the platform at that time. But, I'm also a realist. I am
>working with others that think through small steps, we can accomplish
>the long term goal of some type of MPE beyond EOL. We have made
>sincere and significant progress. There is a long way to go, but at
>least there is an alternate and possible future that didn't exist a
>few months back.

I concur with Mark's comments and the progress that is being made
towards a win-win solution for everyone involved.

I also find it interesting that the couple of posters that are so
adamant today on this topic have little knowledge of those on
this list which have such a long history of supporting MPE.  Mark was
a major proponent in supporting the porting of various tools to MPE in
an effort to bring other applications to the environment.  He's done
a lot behind the scenes with HP/CSY in support of MPE's robustness and
reliability so he really does know and understand what it means for MPE
to be that reliable...he helped architect some of it!  He's also one of
the few people outside of HP that has the knowledge/experience to actually
help support MPE kernal/bootstap/linker/etc. should MPE source management
be licensed.

So taking pot-shots at someone in the community like this simply
demonstrates the shooters lack of knowledge of the complexities of the
issues involved and the major players, without whom there would undoubtedly
be no future for MPE.