Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxx.xx) on August 2, 2012 8:08 am wrote:
> rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com) on August 2, 2012 7:54 am
> wrote:
> >
> > Although that doesn't directly address Ricardo's question.
>
> > Without a semi-healthy HP-UX base, it's unlikely that IPF development is
>
> > sustainable for only the VMS and NonStop customer bases. Likewise System
> Z
> > would not be viable without the zOS base (despite the existence of
> zVSE, zTPF,
> > zVM, and Linux).
>
> I would not compare it that way.
> IMHO,
> VMS/NonStop are to IPF what z/OS is to zSeries: "weird" non-Unix OS with deep
> pocket customers which would have a very hard time migrating to another
> platform.
>
> I would not compare HP-UX to z/OS. Being Unix, HP-UX is vulnerable
> to migrations to Linux no matter what.
>

Robert probably is talking about relative volumes rather than technical similarities.
By this criterion, VMS+NSK are likely responsible for even smaller percentage of HP Integrity revenues than zVSE+zTPF+zVM are of IBM System z revenues.
And HP-UX is likely responsible for even bigger percentage of HP Integrity revenues than zOS is of IBM System z revenues.
Continuing comparison, despite the clear trend down, Linux+Windows on HP Integrity probably still constitute percentage of HP Itanium revenues which is comparable to that of Linux on IBM System z, but from strategical point of view the later is much more important for the long-term viability of the platform.