> big companies like mine with critical systems cannot
> sit on the fence and wait to see if MPE will survive, we need
> to make plans
> now, and unfortunately they cannot include an 'officially unsupported
> product'.
Hard to believe HP could be so supportive of its big customers!
Speculate, please: what could HP's foot-dragging motives possibly be? Could
it be that it's simply contrary to their larger marketing strategies to make
public that they'll easily be among the very last MPE homesteaders?
WHY NOT really open-source MPE, and WHY NOT allow 9000-to-3000 conversions?
Because they want to sell all those users something "new" (even if it's
actually older & flakier than MPE)? Surely not really due to 3 internal
software licenses: Open-sourced MPE sans those pieces would probably quickly
gain improved replacements.
Certain e3k software vendors, who these days receive a lot more from the
3000 community than they contribute, should be more than willing to do quite
a bit to perpetuate their cash cow, including ponying up millions for
emulation.
HP itself will be one of the last homesteaders, but at least they won't have
to deal with their draconian licensing procedures!
Tracy (just ranting, no replies expected) Pierce
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Martin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:26 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Computerworld Articles
>
>
> > I interpreted what the VP at Tufts said differently than
> you, I think.
> > I interpreted his statement to mean that if MPE/iX were available as
> > open source, then Tufts itself did not have the means, interest, or
> > technical background to make the modifications that they might need
> > in the future as their business evolves. I don't see where he's
> > saying that the community itself isn't capable of achieving this.
> > I do think he's saying that his business plans cannot wait
> for that to
> > happen.
> >
> > Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comments above.
> >
> > MikeP
>
> I have to pretty much agree with Mike, we are now decided at
> migrating away
> from the 3000.
>
> I know this may not be what people want to hear but I think
> we've missed the
> boat on this one, most big companies like mine with critical
> systems cannot
> sit on the fence and wait to see if MPE will survive, we need
> to make plans
> now, and unfortunately they cannot include an 'officially unsupported
> product'.
>
> That's not to say that I don't admire Jon and the boys for
> trying, I love
> the 3000 for ease of use and development and stability, you
> all know the
> script. It's just that HP have dragged their heals long
> enough for most
> people to move on now, it's just the homesteaders who need it now.
>
> I talked to my board about the emulator idea and it got thrown almost
> immediately, I couldn't even get it through on the basis of
> using it for
> archive access, they'd rather just pay that little extra to
> convert the data
> we need and need to keep, on mass.
>
> I still can't believe that HP can afford throw away £50k/pa
> in support?
>
> Sorry in more ways than one.
>
> Regards
>
> Peter Martin
> IT Operations Manager
> Initial Electronic Security
> t. 01282 473561
> f. 01254 267549
> e. [log in to unmask]
>
|
