On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:41 PM, John Lee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> OpenMPE just wants the source code, as I understand it.  Then they'll run
> with it.  HP is not being asked to do anything.  In fact, I think it's the
> opposite of asking HP to make an investment...OpenMPE wants to take over MPE
> in its entirety and HP can be rid of it.
>

Seems simple.  The "devil is in the details" and having OpenMPE take
possession can potentially also create some legal problems which would be an
unrecoverable cost.  There was also some embarrassing comments embedded in
the code the last time I looked.  The amount of code is large for Classic
MPE alone, then add in subsystems, POSIX, some 3rd licensed code, etc. and
you have quite a pile that has to be reviewed technically and legally; then
technical and legal fixes need to be applied as necessary.  I have a feeling
that situation only gets worse, and there is less people in HP that are
interested in spending time dealing with it over time.  Just my
not-so-humble-opinion though.

From HP's POV, a quiet death is the least risky and least costly
alternative, IMNSHO.  This equation becomes more so as time passes and
customer attrition continues.

I wish the situation was different, as I really like MPE as a business
application development and operation environment.  I have been told that
the last chance to rescue MPE from the road to oblivion was in 2001.  I now
think that he probably was right.  In hindsight, I should have backed
Alfredo's bid to stop PA-RISC development and continue with their 32bit
version of their stack architecture CPU (aka Classic) know as Vision, IIRC.
Not that my backing would have made much difference though.

Peter

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