good call, josef.  now, gentle listers,

Is there any reason MPE can't be functionally emulated atop Unixen?  That
would seem to make for a fairly clean world (though maybe not as reliable as
pure MPE) including modern tools like Samba & Apache, and MPE could still be
licensed at least approximately as it always has been: per seat.

HP's obviously waffling because they want to extract maximum dollars from
their flagship system, and for as long as they can (and I sure don't blame
them for that - good business (contrary to policy?)!)

It's been suggested before, and largely ignored, but Why not a corporate
spin-off named MPEInc?  The license and service contracts would go, along
with the PA-RISC hardware specs (under NDA of course) needed to decipher the
low-level code, all of which would be rewritten with a decent OS underneath.
HP would still own 100%, at least at first, but we'd have a much more
compact and approachable corporate entity with which to deal.

HP's already thoroughly lost favor with this current MPE user and ex-HP
stockholder (yep, another emotional decision!), but I'd sure buy into a
viable-looking MPEInc.

Tracy Pierce


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rosenblatt, joseph [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PA-RISC Emulator
>
>
> Open Letter to Jon Backus and the Board of OpenMPE Inc.,
>
> First, I wish to thank you for all of the work you have done.
>
> I was unable to attend HPW so I did not get to hear what
> transpired at the
> OpenMPE session. From what I have gleaned from what you wrote
> about the
> session HP gave a firm commitment, with caveats, to think
> about giving its
> blessing to the emulator project. What is not clear is what
> emulator project
> encompasses.
>
> From all of the preceding messages on this thread it becomes
> abundantly
> clear that there are many different opinions on the subject.
> Most of the
> points made are salient, indeed. The trouble is they are
> contradictory. The
> emulator cannot be all things to all people so it needs to be defined.
>
> If  the BOD does not feel that this is their function then there are a
> number of contributors to this thread that are recognized
> leaders and gurus
> in the MPE world, including BOD members. I would like to
> suggest that the
> BOD ask these people and others to form a committee to define
> the emulator
> project. This would be productive not only because of the resulting
> definition, it would also stop the bickering.
>
> Please forgive me for weighing in on this topic. I have very little to
> contribute from a technical, marketing or financial
> perspective so this one
> idea is the only thing I can contribute. Thank you for indulging me.
>
> The opinions expressed herein are my own and not necessarily
> those of my
> employer.
> Yosef Rosenblatt
>