Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcdc!perry
From: perry@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Perry Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: SNAKE CLUSTER(?)
Message-ID: <5570641@hpfcdc.HP.COM>
Date: 20 May 91 20:25:19 GMT
References: <1991Apr15.204425.8682@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: HP Fort Collins, Co.
Lines: 27

>As someone already suggested, there are multiple reasons why we may
>want them.  You may not agree that the solution we desire is the best
>for our situation, but that is for us to decide, not you.


Given there is a non-zero cost for implementing and supporting these
features, are you willing to pay more for an HP system with partitions
on it ?  In a commodities market like Un*x, a vendor implements those
features with highest ROI.  That means either high returns in terms of
leveraging sales and/or low investment in terms of R&D and support.
Apparently, partitions for workstations didn't make the cut.

Granted, you may think (and I can't disagree) this is a lousy argument
for not doing partitions for workstations when they already exist on the
800s.  But I'm sure you can appreciate not having to pay for other extra
bells and whistles you don't need.  Whenever a feature is added, the
engineering time must be recouped by surcharging the customer.  If you
don't, you won't stay in business.

I won't even begin to weigh the technical merits of partitions vs their
drawbacks.  That argument has been around the net once already.

Perry Scott

"Not representing the opinion of HP."

*UNIX is a trademark of AT&T