>
> Richard Gambrell wrote:
>
> >You would think that some vendor would be able to make money out of all
> >this "breakage" by moving to actually support what we need/want (and
> >worked very well for many of us) and giving us a good alternative path. As
> >far as I can tell, Microsoft (with NT server) is the most likely (if they
> >ever learn rate reliabilty over functionality) to pick up this ball -
> >after all, it is not an 'Open' system (MPE is more open the NT).
>
> Just out of interest, how would you convince a non-MPEer that MPE is
> more open than NT?  After all, in each case, the OS is defined by a
> single vendor (unlike UNIX).  Both also support POSIX, to some degree.
> Also, NT runs on more platforms than MPE ...
>
 
MPE is "more Open" when "Open" means Unix (posix) simply due to MPE's
support for the posix command set as part of FOS. NT obviously (especially
the Win32 API) has a much broader market acceptance and is "open" (like MPE)
in that 3rd parties can access much/most of the functionality of the
operating system through APIs (MPE's AIFs).
 
 
--
-- - - - Speaking for myself and not necessarily anybody else - - - - - -
Richard Gambrell        | Internet: [log in to unmask]
Mgr. Tech. Services     | POT:      504-483-7454     FAX: 504-482-1561
Xavier University of LA | Smail:    7325 Palmetto, New Orleans, LA 70125