On Fri, 28 Jul 1995, Ken Sletten b894 c331 x2525 wrote:
 
> Denys after Stan after HP Tracy DeDore:
>
> TRACY:
> [.....SNIP.....]
> >>>5.  What would be the benefits of porting
> >>>     Allbase/4GL to HP-UX 10.0?
> >>>     If Allbase/4GL were not ported to HP-UX 10.0,
> >>>     how would that impact your environment?
>
> .......    I note in passing the use of the word "porting" here.
> Can you imagine anyone on the 3000 side;  user *or* HP
> employee;  ever using the term "porting" to apply to, say,
> going from MPE/iX 4.0 to 5.0 even with Transact, to say
> nothing of Image/SQL ??.....  Bet not......
>
> And how about the question of how sites might be
> impacted if Image/SQL got permanently "lost" in going
> from 4.0 to 5.0 ?!?!...
>
> Guess I just don't understand the great and wonderful
> open systems UNIX world........
>
> BTW, note I'm not at all trying to beat up on Tracy here.
> She still works with the Transact Lab too (at least AFAIK);
> there are so few people in HP still doing that, I don't want
> to get her mad at me....     ;-)
>
> STAN:
> [.....SNIP.....]
> >> ... which makes me gleefully suggest:    Maybe HP will
> >>  suggest MPE/iX as a migration path for HP-UX users?
>
> If HP Corporate marketing management (hmmm.....  is that
> some kind of oxymoron ??...) used a level playing field they
> would......  But I'm not holding my breath.....
>
> DENYS:
> [.....SNIP.....]
> >I guess as long as your system in open, your
> >databases do not have to be?!?        :-()
>
> Ah, gentle sir, but it seems you may be trying to apply
> objective logical analysis to a patently illogical situation...
> ;-)  ,
>
> Ken Sletten
>
The only application code truly portable is inefficient and not very
complex.  I am old enough to remember that CoBOL promised portability
when it first came out. Unfortunately, corporate officers make
portability the first priority without undestanding the implications.
 
NMD