Some comments interspersed. I'm not defending HP-UX here necessarily;
I don't like it much myself, to be honest. But it *is* what I know,
and John has mistated a number of things that need addressing.

John R. Wolff wrote:

  > 3) MPE is far and away a much more reliable operating system that rarely
  > crashes or needs to be rebooted.  We only boot ours when we are patching or
  > updating the operating system.  HP-UX should be re-booted at least once a
  > month to prevent crashes.

This is simply not true. I have HP-UX systems right in front of me that
have been running for over a year. As you say - "we only boot ours when
we are patching and updating the operating system." Now if you were
talking about Windows...

I'm interested to hear about why you think you have to reboot once a
month? Have you been talking to Sun? 8^)

  > 4) MPE has a much more flexible security system than UNIX.  Files, accounts
  > and users all can be given capabilities and/or access restrictions to
  > suit.  UNIX has a crude security simply based on ownership, group
  > membership or just being anybody.

Have you investigated the ACL structure on HP-UX?

  > 5) MPE actually has the concept of application accounts to separate users
  > and applications from each other.  There is no account structure on HP-UX,
  > this is a mind game that depends on perfect security setup and membership
  > in a group (of members; not to be confused with a group of files on MPE).
  > In MPE users can be defined with varying degrees of capabilities from weak
  > to system manager and everything in between.  In HP-UX there are only 2
  > user categories: root (the system manager) and everybody else, with no
  > capabilities to distinguish the abilities of non-root users.

The commonly used sudo utility allows non-root levels of access to resources
on HP-UX.

  > 6) There are many programming languages available for MPE (COBOL, Fortran,
  > C+, Transact, SPL, RPG, Basic, etc.).  You can even have different flavors
  > of COBOL or Fortran, for example, on the same computer.  MPE is a superior
  > development platform which is why it is often chosen for custom programming
  > applications.  Of course, to get the full benefit from the HP3000 you have
  > to utilize the many proprietary features offered.  To do otherwise is to
  > question the choice of MPE in the first place.
  >
  > HP-UX is usually limited to one instance of a given language per computer.
  > COBOL and C+ seem to be the popular choices on HP-UX, but there are
  > others.  We do not write programs for HP-UX (too difficult), but just run
  > canned applications.  I have written many lengthy scripts which is
  > tedious.  The tools are basically low level, some are quite powerful.

There are many programming languages available for HP-UX as well.
You imply that HP-UX will not allow different compiler flavors -
not true, as others have pointed out.

  > 7) MPE comes bundled with an outstanding database called Turbo IMAGE.  This
  > is a fast, robust and easy to use database, but is not relational.  MPE
  > also has a relational database called ALLBASE, which is extra cost and not
  > as popular.  Many fine third party utilities are available for IMAGE, such
  > as Adager which allows the restructuring of an existing database for
  > various alterations without having to unload and reload the data within.
  >
  > HP-UX comes with no database at all.  Oracle or Sybase or HP Eloquence can
  > be purchased at extra cost.  HP Eloquence is often mentioned as an IMAGE
  > substitute for HP-UX.  I do not know if it has Adager like capabilites or
  > even supports B-trees.  However, my suspicion is that to use it would be a
  > leap back 25 years to the early days of IMAGE on the HP3000.  IMAGE is
  > built into MPE.  On HP-UX databases are bolt-on products that the operating
  > system is not aware of.

This has both advantages and disadvantages. Believe it or not, there
are applications that don't require a database.

  > 8) MPE has an easy to use and robust command language (JCL) with many
  > commands for both operation of the system and for user applications.
  >
  > HP-UX has a crude, cryptic set of commands which are clumsy to use and
  > requires much care to learn.  Some commands are built-in to the shell.
  > HP-UX comes with a choice of several shells.  Most commands are little
  > programs that have been added over 33 years from various sources.  Commands
  > usually have many tedious and cryptic options to choose from.  Some of the
  > commands are very powerful (even dangerous) and make for interesting
  > computer science in university settings.

I will agree with you on this one. I have never liked any of the Unix
shells. Personally, I perfer VMS's DCL, but that's another flame war.

  > 9) MPE is designed for both interactive users as well as jobs which run in
  > the backround.  It is much more efficient at distributing computer
  > resources amongst interactive users than HP-UX.  Jobs are real concepts
  > that can be monitored and managed easily with command support.  This is why
  > a smaller HP3000 box can do the work that otherwise requires a larger
  > HP9000 to do the same tasks.

I'd be interested to hear how you measured this, and how you determined
that MPE is more efficient at distributing resources amongst interactive
users.

  > With HP-UX the concept of "jobs" is another mind game.  If you launch a
  > process that runs in the backround you only get to see if it is still
  > running in your session while you are logged on.  Once you log off it is
  > just another process that is difficult to monitor.

I guess I don't find the "ps" command that difficult to type.

  > 10) MPE gives us the major benefit of compatibility from one release of the
  > OS to the next, each release upgrading capability without trashing
  > applications and jobs which have already been developed.  Upgrading of
  > applications can be independent from the OS and from each other!  Thus,
  > multiple applications can be run on a single computer!  This concept is
  > what makes MPE unique in today's operating system world of UNIX/Windows.
  > It is the most valuable business reason to prefer MPE over HP-UX.

With all due respect, this is flat wrong. You imply that you can't
upgrade the OS under an application. I've done it plenty of times.
You imply you can't run multiple applications on a single HP-UX machine.
Sorry, but I've seen it plenty of times. I don't understand where this
comment comes from.

  > HP-UX is a proprietary flavor of UNIX (as is SUN Solaris and IBM AIX) which
  > does not value compatibility at all.  Each major (sometimes minor) release
  > of the operating system will usually reorganize system file structures
  > making scripts and applications unuseable until the applications are
  > simultaneously upgraded along with supporting tools such as databases.  All
  > programs have to be recompiled (at the minimum) with new compilers to work
  > with a new release.  Thus, it is poor planning to run more than one
  > application per computer because too much down time is involved and the
  > coordination of various products is a nightmare.  Furthermore, a UNIX shop
  > should also have an extra development system on hand to work out the
  > upgrade process while a production system continues to function (twice the
  > cost).

I am right now running an application on HP-UX 11 that was developed over ten
years ago on HP-UX 8.05. Thus, your point about applications being forced
to recompile must not be true. Also, your point about OS revisions
changing the file system structures must also not be true, or this
application, which is heavily dependent on the OS file system structure,
would not work at all.

To my knowledge there was one major change in the file system structure;
as others have pointed out, the shift from 9 to 10 involved major
changed to align UX with other Unix variants like Solaris. And HP
supplied softlinks to emulate the old structure for backwards compatibility.

I think you're way off base on this one. The best reason to recompile
an application that I know of is for PERFORMANCE, to take advantage
of compiler optimizations and new chip architectures. I have never
heard of applications being forced to recompile for an OS revision,
and I talk to customers every day.

  > 11) MPE requires and enforces the separation of code and data which has
  > several benefits.  It allows program code to be used by several users since
  > it does not change.  This also is a major reason why MPE is much more
  > reliable.

Ummm, HP-UX also separates code and data. In memory. That is what you
were talking about (?). Or were you talking about on-disk data?

  > 12)MPE protects itself from damage, even from the system manager in many
  > cases.  Obviously, the system manager can wreck the system if he wants to
  > but more effort is required.  In HP-UX the root user is able to do anything
  > to the system, even by accident, with no questions asked.
  >
  > 13) Transition to an upgraded HP3000 or replacement of the system disc is a
  > relatively simple matter of reloading the system and data from tape.  This
  > is a nearly automatic process and has been taken for granted by HP3000
  > users ever since MPE was first developed.  It seems only logical that a
  > system should be able to boot itself from tape as well as disc, but this is
  > a foreign concept to most UNIX and Windows users.  This is probably a
  > fundamental shock to many HP3000 users that have not ventured to the UNIX
  > world.

What? I've booted UX from tape since 1990. Nowadays we have this new
concept called a CD-ROM that we use to boot from as well 8^). Not sure
who you've been talking to, but all the UX admins I know (literally
hundreds) are very adept at booting from tape if required. Hardly a
"foreign concept."

  > HP-UX does not work that way.  HP-UX requires a fresh, plain vanilla load
  > of the OS which then must be configured so that it can even find the tape
  > to load data from.  However, just loading a previously configured OS over
  > the virgin OS from tape will likely cause a crash because of configuration
  > differences of devices, etc..  HP has attempted to address this problem
  > with a product called Ignite.  A specially prepared and current Ignite tape
  > MUST be on hand at the time of disaster.  However, it requires much
  > interaction and use by an expert to restore a system from tape.

Yes, a tape must be present to recover from a disaster. Are you implying
that MPE can do it without a tape? This will be interesting to hear 8^).

Ignite isn't that hard to learn. Sheesh, even I can do it. It's part of
being a UX admin. Solaris has a similar tool. It's the way Unix is,
rightly or wrongly.

  > 14) MPE comes with robust backup and recovery tools that users can easily
  > master.  HP-UX comes with crude tools like fbackup, tar, etc. that the user
  > must cobble together with some sort of script as the first task to do upon
  > owning and managing a UNIX system.  Feedback from these tools is tricky to
  > determine success of a backup process.

Agree on this one. That's why HP sells Omniback 8^).

  > 15) MPE can dynamically disable bad memory allowing a system to be
  > gracefully shutdown.  HP-UX panics in such a situation and crashes.  Two
  > different approaches with the same hardware.
  >
  > .....
  >
  > The above items are simply some of the highlights of differences that come
  > to mind when comparing the two operating systems.  I am sure others can
  > embellish and expand on this list.  Each item mentioned above can be
  > expanded upon for more detail, but this is not the place to do it.
  >
  > Current HP3000 users being stampeded to migrate to HP-UX should think about
  > these differences and proceed with much caution.  Current HP3000 users that
  > have developed custom applications have much more of a challenge ahead of
  > them than those just turning to a pre-existing package on HP-UX.  Before
  > committing to a major migration, buy a small used HP9000 and really play
  > with it.  Take classes on HP-UX administration.  Know what you are dealing
  > with and then make whatever migration plans make sense to you with your
  > eyes open.

This last is a true statement.

John, you seem to have formed a number of misconceptions about
HP-UX capabilities and features. Hopefully we can clear some of
these up so people are properly informed for their planning.

I would encourage those of you with questions like this to attend
HP World/InterWorks in September; there are sessions dealing with
exactly these issues.

- Greg

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *