My mail of 11/21/01 concurs:-

Having read John Wolff's contribution I feel I have to respond:-

Saying that - I can find no words that can express any better my feelings
and probably those of many many others. Thanks John for saying it all!!!!

The future:-

My gut feel is that a pure "OPEN" MPE would not be "politically viable" to
customers that use HP3000s for mission critical applications whatever the
apparent benefits may be.

However - should HP collect their MPE expertise into a separate business
entity which could then be externally licensed - producing an income
stream - or be the subject of an MBO - also generating capital or be
purchased outright by one or a group of HP3000 service companies. Then there
would be the possibility of a non-HP flavour of MPE that could be developed
and supported and construed as open and perhaps offer the opportunity of
continuing with the "HP Way".

If however, HP having made their decision, decide to "bury" MPE to preclude
any opportunity to change their minds - and admit that perhaps it was not
one of their better decisions. Then it will be difficult to move forward.

As an HP contactor I have little to offer but these thoughts, but I do hope
that those that can make a difference can be reached and encourage HP to
make clear if they wish to "spin off" MPE or not.

Ted



-----Original Message-----
From: OpenMPE Support Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Tracy Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PA-RISC Emulator


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
>