> From: Jonathan M. Backus [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
>         From my prospective, the topic of SS_Config usage
> isn't so much what we
> consider 'reasonable' to expect from application and utility software
> vendors.  It's more of an issue of implementing a safety net for the
> exceptions.  Even if there ends up being no exceptions, there
> was no harm in
> having the assurance.  I think, while "virtual CSY" still exists there
> should be an effort to create a policy by which trusted
> entities can use
> SS_Config (and/or a tool similar to it) beyond 2006 under a
> 'reasonable' and
> well defined set of circumstances.  We then tuck that away
> and maybe it
> never gets used.
>
> Thanx,
>         Jon

Thank you, Jon, for bringing some reasonableness back to the discussion.
While my ultimate preference would be for SS_Config to at some point become
public domain, if HP were to develop a "policy by which trusted entities can
use SS_Config (and/or a tool similar to it) beyond 2006 under a 'reasonable'
and well defined set of circumstances" I would be satisfied that potential
problems beyond 2006 have been planned for.

I am still, however, concerned about the period 11/1/2003 - 12/31/2006. As
it stands, HP will exercise control over the used system and parts market by
controlling SS_Config. To me, it is one more example of how it is trying to
force people off the HP 3000, rather than allowing them to choose their own
path.

John