Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpdslab!hpiacla!mlight
From: mlight@hpiacla.HP.COM (Mike Light )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Re: O'pain Software Foundation: (2) Why is it better than AT&T?
Message-ID: <4070013@hpiacla.HP.COM>
Date: 27 May 88 16:22:15 GMT
References: <4629@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Lines: 24


> It just occurred to me that HP, while joining in the chorus of "we're
> at a disadvantage due to delay," has voluntarily put itself in an even
> worse position: HP wants to be SysV, thus forcing it to wait on AT&T
> releases, and supports NFS and YP, thus forcing it to wait on Sun
> releases.  HP has no business claiming that they're suddenly in a
> worse position than they used to be in light of the A/S plan; if
> anything, their timing will be *improved* by getting an entire release
> from a single source at one time.

You're quite right - HP wishes to be SysV and support NFS - and we
don't really mind being a few months "behind" on releases from AT&T/Sun.

The apparent fear was that future releases might be "slanted" toward
SPARC machines which might not run well on HP architectures
thus leaving HP at a price/performance disadvantage.  And all this
talk about "standard binaries"... huh. right.  SPARC standard binaries.

I believe HP got a wee bit nervous that its $400 million investment
in HP Precision Architecture might be in jeopardy.

	-- Mike Light. 

P.S.  I speak only for myself.  I am considered a heretic by some.