On 2021-08-09, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/9/2021 8:08 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-08-08, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why should VSI care about VAX?
>>>
>>
>> Because of expected trust and honourable behaviour on the part of
>> the hobbyists if VSI decide to give them free access to what is
>> otherwise an expensive product.
>>
>> Is this concept of honourable behaviour really so hard to understand ?
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> As I may have mentioned, there is no need for "cheating" as long as VSI
> exists. As long as the VSI CL program exists, there is valid usage of
> VSI releases of VMS. So it won't happen.
>

Yes it will if VSI terminate the hobbyist program for some reason or
restrict its functionality for some reason.

Given some of the sense of entitlement we have seen, some people will
not accept that and look for ways to break the licencing on the existing
VSI hobbyist kits before this change or retirement was made.

> VSI has no interest in VAX. So why should they care if some hobbyists
> do whatever necessary to continue to run VAX/VMS?
>

You really don't get this honourable behaviour thing do you David ?

How a person conducts themself in one area can be used as an indicator
for how they will conduct themself in another area.

If you feel free to bypass a VAX licence, you are likely to feel free
to bypass a VSI hobbyist licence if the VSI hobbyist program gets changed
for some reason.

> Hobbyists enjoying the VSI CL are not hobbyists attempting to continue
> to run VAX/VMS. VSI's releases of VMS are NOT the same as VAX/VMS.
> What is your justification of trying to consider them both the same thing?
>

I have explained that above.

> But let's address the plight of VAX/VMS and how it might relate to the
> loss of use of VSI's VMS releases. Does anyone (other than Simon)
> expect entities who depend upon VSI's releases of VMS to keep their
> businesses viable, and the employees who depend upon those businesses
> for their jobs, just cease to exist if something happened to VSI?
>

You are moving the discussion away from hobbyist programs and to
business use.

However, to answer your question: No, I don't expect them to cease to
exist either. What I expect is for them to have done is to come up with
plans for how they would handle the failure of a vendor if they start
doing business with that vendor.

> Read that last paragraph carefully and then explain what should happen
> should VSI cease operations.
>

Careful David, I'm getting told off for considering that possibility. :-)

> Is it "honorable behaviour" to expect businesses to just give up? If
> sos, then I do not understand.
>

What you should have done is before you committed to a vendor was to
consider what you would do if that vendor goes bust one day.

And to their credit, it looks like everyone is doing this. Why do you
think there is such a strong negative reaction to the time limited
production licences ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2021-08-09, Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh@hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, in a place far, far into the future, these failing
> licensing spells merely emit ever-larger puffs of greasy orange smoke,
> with connectivity messages and spell-supporting information, eventually
> with spell-degradation of sorts arising as the remote warlocks get
> increasingly cranky, and with telemetry data for both failed and
> successful spells all uploaded to the Bureau of Spells and Spellcasting
> located at Castle Burlington. With the full magical integration across
> all of the Castle Burlington elf and warlock computing spells services,
> with on-line license spell purchasing, this new single-spell design
> eliminates the need for many of the spells entirely (your Castle
> Burlington ID and password is enough), allows the elves to access all
> the resources of Castle Burlington, and to directly access supporting
> books and resources and documents, to maintain compliance with the
> Bureau of Spells and Spellcasting of course, and to otherwise enjoy the
> benefits of Spells as a Service provided by Castle Burlington. The
> elves and a few warlocks then grumbled ever after. The End.
>

That's great right until Castle Burlington burns down or isn't
viable to keep running any longer.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
> On 08/09/21 18:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/9/2021 12:19 PM, chris wrote:
>>> On 08/09/21 16:41, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2021 11:26 AM, chris wrote:
>>>>> Even Oracle make their os's free to use none commercially
>>>>> , with again, the money made via support contracts.
>>>>
>>>> Oracle Linux is a clone of Redhat Linux. Again if VSI got VMS
>>>> maintained for free and they just need to wrap up a build with their
>>>> logo, then it would work great for them as well.
>>>
>>> Even the latest Solaris 11 is free to download and use non commercially,
>>> so if Oracle thinks that's a good business headed, they probably know
>>> what they are doing. ultra hard headed as they are...
>>
>> True.
>>
>> But I don't think Solaris future looks particular great. Oracle is
>> going Linux.
>
> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a support
> only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast range of s/w
> from that site, same business.

Having doubt about one products future and getting the other product
most maintained by somebody else is not what I would consider a
successful business model for VSI to adopt.

> That would also solve the hobbyist question, as they generate no
> revenue in any case. Why bother with hobby program at all, other
> than for reasons of control...

True.

And if VSI would make money from VMS HW then it would be a lot
easier to make it work out. But they are not.

Arne

On 08/09/21 18:48, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-09, Dave Froble<davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2021 8:08 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-08, Dave Froble<davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why should VSI care about VAX?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because of expected trust and honourable behaviour on the part of
>>> the hobbyists if VSI decide to give them free access to what is
>>> otherwise an expensive product.
>>>
>>> Is this concept of honourable behaviour really so hard to understand ?
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>> As I may have mentioned, there is no need for "cheating" as long as VSI
>> exists. As long as the VSI CL program exists, there is valid usage of
>> VSI releases of VMS. So it won't happen.
>>
>
> Yes it will if VSI terminate the hobbyist program for some reason or
> restrict its functionality for some reason.
>
> Given some of the sense of entitlement we have seen, some people will
> not accept that and look for ways to break the licencing on the existing
> VSI hobbyist kits before this change or retirement was made.
>
>> VSI has no interest in VAX. So why should they care if some hobbyists
>> do whatever necessary to continue to run VAX/VMS?
>>
>
> You really don't get this honourable behaviour thing do you David ?
>
> How a person conducts themself in one area can be used as an indicator
> for how they will conduct themself in another area.

All relationships in life depend on trust, but that applies to both
sides. If a company is seen as greedy or mistrustful, then why should
customers trust them ?. Things like lmf start of at the wrong side
of trust and some, right or wrong, may take that as an excuse to
cheat the system themselves. Much better to be seen on the right side
of trust, setting an example, which encourages others to do the right
thing as well.

Remember the business model chosen by DEC, and we all know how that
ended...

On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 08/09/21 18:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2021 12:19 PM, chris wrote:
>>>> On 08/09/21 16:41, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2021 11:26 AM, chris wrote:
>>>>>> Even Oracle make their os's free to use none commercially
>>>>>> , with again, the money made via support contracts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oracle Linux is a clone of Redhat Linux. Again if VSI got VMS
>>>>> maintained for free and they just need to wrap up a build with their
>>>>> logo, then it would work great for them as well.
>>>>
>>>> Even the latest Solaris 11 is free to download and use non
>>>> commercially,
>>>> so if Oracle thinks that's a good business headed, they probably know
>>>> what they are doing. ultra hard headed as they are...
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> But I don't think Solaris future looks particular great. Oracle is
>>> going Linux.
>>
>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a support
>> only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast range of s/w
>> from that site, same business.
>
> Having doubt about one products future and getting the other product
> most maintained by somebody else is not what I would consider a
> successful business model for VSI to adopt.

Of course, but we are not suggesting that and in any case, Oracle always
have, right back to the days of Sun, done all the Solaris development
in house, millions of $, but have made money from it none the less.

Found a generous attitude with IBM as well, in that when evaluating an
old power machine, found a utility on the IBM web site that worked out
all the patches needed for the version of aix, then emailed a link to
download the whole lot in one hit. No charge, no license questions and
no pack drill. Just got the job done.

Get better results in business if you are seen as being generous and
willing to help, but that seems obvious to me...

>
> > That would also solve the hobbyist question, as they generate no
> > revenue in any case. Why bother with hobby program at all, other
> > than for reasons of control...
>
> True.
>
> And if VSI would make money from VMS HW then it would be a lot
> easier to make it work out. But they are not.
>
> Arne
>
>

On 8/9/21 12:47 PM, chris wrote:
> On 08/09/21 17:19, chris wrote:
>> business headed,
>
> Typo: business headed, should read, business model.
>
> LMF type systems belong to a past age of greed, mistrust and
> assumptions about customer honesty and have no place in the
> modern age. One of the primary reasons why vax and vms was
> dumped by so many uni departments and businesses, but some never
> learn.

As someone who was there and fought against the removal of VMS from
academic circles, you are just plain wrong. No one other than the
administrator knew what LMF was or what it did. VMS went away from
academia because it was seen as old and not moving forward. It was
legacy. (There's that word again!!) It was dropped at the same time
that other legacy items like COBOL and Fortran and Pascal (and, yes,
Ada) were left in the dust.

Even after it left academia the schools still used it administratively.
It left that market when the canned packages everyone was using (like
Banner) dropped support for it. You would have to ask them why they
decided to abandon VMS. What does Oracle say about it??

bill

On 2021-08-09 17:56:40 +0000, Simon Clubley said:

> That's great right until Castle Burlington burns down or isn't viable
> to keep running any longer.

The castle "burned down" once before, and with the vendor having been
presenting platform porting sessions. No SaaS license time limits that
time of course, which is your central concern here. Outside of that one
licensing detail, the remaining customers clearly already have a fairly
high tolerance for the platform vendor disappearing.

If the SaaS licensing is a concern (and it may well be), then work with
VSI for license escrow and/or for longer licenses and/or for longer
support subscriptions, and/or review or plan or start porting, and/or
start making the existing app code more portable, and/or expect to
negotiate with whatever entity acquires the rights to the swamp that
the castle burned down, fell over, and sank into. There are other
options. Check with the local organization's corporate legal and
corporate risk folks, too.

I've worked with piles of FORTRAN and which were and are fairly
portable, and with other apps which are tied pretty tightly to OpenVMS
features. And I'm aware of apps that have already ported, or that are
porting.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

In article <serrmi$1akh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net (chris)
wrote:

> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajh�j wrote:
> > On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
> >> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
> >> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
> >> range of s/w from that site, same business.

Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.

Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
hardware with Solaris.

Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.

> Of course, but we are not suggesting that and in any case, Oracle
> always have, right back to the days of Sun, done all the Solaris
> development in house, millions of $, but have made money from it
> none the less.

They seem to have rather lower levels of spending on that these days.

John

On 08/09/21 21:35, John Dallman wrote:
> In article<serrmi$1akh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net (chris)
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
>>>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
>>>> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
>>>> range of s/w from that site, same business.
>
> Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.
>
> Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
> hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
> hardware with Solaris.
>
> Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
> evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.

Of course, all that is public knowledge and here at least, have been
using Sun kit for far longer than vms. That's sad, because VMS was the
first serious OS I worked with and I really liked it. At least with
some other proprietary systems, I can evaluate at no cost and use them
without limit for non commercial purposes. More likely to find something
to recommend to clients under such conditions.

>
>> Of course, but we are not suggesting that and in any case, Oracle
>> always have, right back to the days of Sun, done all the Solaris
>> development in house, millions of $, but have made money from it
>> none the less.
>
> They seem to have rather lower levels of spending on that these days.

Yes, nothing stays the same, but still doesn't negate the point I was
trying to make about successful software licensing models...

>
> John

On 08/09/21 20:16, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/9/21 12:47 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 08/09/21 17:19, chris wrote:
>>> business headed,
>>
>> Typo: business headed, should read, business model.
>>
>> LMF type systems belong to a past age of greed, mistrust and
>> assumptions about customer honesty and have no place in the
>> modern age. One of the primary reasons why vax and vms was
>> dumped by so many uni departments and businesses, but some never
>> learn.
>
> As someone who was there and fought against the removal of VMS from
> academic circles, you are just plain wrong. No one other than the
> administrator knew what LMF was or what it did. VMS went away from
> academia because it was seen as old and not moving forward. It was
> legacy. (There's that word again!!) It was dropped at the same time
> that other legacy items like COBOL and Fortran and Pascal (and, yes,
> Ada) were left in the dust.
>
>
> Even after it left academia the schools still used it administratively.
> It left that market when the canned packages everyone was using (like
> Banner) dropped support for it. You would have to ask them why they
> decided to abandon VMS. What does Oracle say about it??
>
> bill
>

I guess books have been written on that subject, but the OS market
has far more choices now than in the past. Any OS trying to make
headway needs to have as few encumbrances as possible and be simple
to get started with. Just download, install and go, ideally. If it
looks like hard work, people will go elsewhere...

On 8/9/21 5:12 PM, chris wrote:
> On 08/09/21 21:35, John Dallman wrote:
>> In article<serrmi$1akh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net (chris)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
>>>>> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
>>>>> range of s/w from that site, same business.
>>
>> Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.
>>
>> Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
>> hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
>> hardware with Solaris.
>>
>> Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
>> evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.
>
> Of course, all that is public knowledge and here at least, have been
> using Sun kit for far longer than vms. That's sad, because VMS was the
> first serious OS I worked with and I really liked it. At least with
> some other proprietary systems, I can evaluate at no cost and use them
> without limit for non commercial purposes. More likely to find something
> to recommend to clients under such conditions.
>
>>
>>> Of course, but we are not suggesting that and in any case, Oracle
>>> always have, right back to the days of Sun, done all the Solaris
>>> development in house, millions of $, but have made money from it
>>> none the less.
>>
>> They seem to have rather lower levels of spending on that these days.
>
> Yes, nothing stays the same, but still doesn't negate the point I was
> trying to make about successful software licensing models...
>

Anybody here know what licensing model Unisys uses? They don't call
it a Hobbyist Program but I have Unisys 2200 running on Intel here.
Works under Windows or Linux. Just like the days when I did Univac
1100 running Exec-8. Still supports the 68/74 COBOL compiler I used
when I did this every day.

bill

On 08/09/21 22:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/9/21 5:12 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 08/09/21 21:35, John Dallman wrote:
>>> In article<serrmi$1akh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net
>>> (chris)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
>>>>>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
>>>>>> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
>>>>>> range of s/w from that site, same business.
>>>
>>> Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.
>>>
>>> Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
>>> hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
>>> hardware with Solaris.
>>>
>>> Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
>>> evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.
>>
>> Of course, all that is public knowledge and here at least, have been
>> using Sun kit for far longer than vms. That's sad, because VMS was the
>> first serious OS I worked with and I really liked it. At least with
>> some other proprietary systems, I can evaluate at no cost and use them
>> without limit for non commercial purposes. More likely to find something
>> to recommend to clients under such conditions.
>>
>>>
>>>> Of course, but we are not suggesting that and in any case, Oracle
>>>> always have, right back to the days of Sun, done all the Solaris
>>>> development in house, millions of $, but have made money from it
>>>> none the less.
>>>
>>> They seem to have rather lower levels of spending on that these days.
>>
>> Yes, nothing stays the same, but still doesn't negate the point I was
>> trying to make about successful software licensing models...
>>
>
> Anybody here know what licensing model Unisys uses? They don't call
> it a Hobbyist Program but I have Unisys 2200 running on Intel here.
> Works under Windows or Linux. Just like the days when I did Univac
> 1100 running Exec-8. Still supports the 68/74 COBOL compiler I used
> when I did this every day.
>
> bill
>

Perhaps no one really cares about a few enthusiasts running older
operating systems. I have several pdp and vax machines, where
there are none of the original DEC os's available to run
legally. I can run several versions of unix from the unix
historical society, but no DEC os's, making all that older
hardware orphans. Did a lot of work on PDP and vax machines
years ago, but no provision now and even have some RA60 packs
full of that work, but are any RA60 drives alive now ?. Maybe
in the US, but not in the uk. I'm sure all this has been done
to death in the past here, but no solution, it seems...

On 8/9/21 6:14 PM, chris wrote:
> On 08/09/21 22:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/9/21 5:12 PM, chris wrote:
>>> On 08/09/21 21:35, John Dallman wrote:
>>>> In article<serrmi$1akh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net
>>>> (chris)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
>>>>>>> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
>>>>>>> range of s/w from that site, same business.
>>>>
>>>> Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.
>>>>
>>>> Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
>>>> hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
>>>> hardware with Solaris.
>>>>
>>>> Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
>>>> evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.
>>>
>>> Of course, all that is public knowledge and here at least, have been
>>> using Sun kit for far longer than vms. That's sad, because VMS was the
>>> first serious OS I worked with and I really liked it. At least with
>>> some other proprietary systems, I can evaluate at no cost and use them
>>> without limit for non commercial purposes. More likely to find something
>>> to recommend to clients under such conditions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course, but we are not suggesting that and in any case, Oracle
>>>>> always have, right back to the days of Sun, done all the Solaris
>>>>> development in house, millions of $, but have made money from it
>>>>> none the less.
>>>>
>>>> They seem to have rather lower levels of spending on that these days.
>>>
>>> Yes, nothing stays the same, but still doesn't negate the point I was
>>> trying to make about successful software licensing models...
>>>
>>
>> Anybody here know what licensing model Unisys uses? They don't call
>> it a Hobbyist Program but I have Unisys 2200 running on Intel here.
>> Works under Windows or Linux. Just like the days when I did Univac
>> 1100 running Exec-8. Still supports the 68/74 COBOL compiler I used
>> when I did this every day.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> Perhaps no one really cares about a few enthusiasts running older
> operating systems.

If you mean the Unisys I was talking about it isn't something old. It
is their current Mainframe Software System. The comments about Univac
1100 and Exec-8 was merely to point out that they continue to support
their older systems along with current technology.

> I have several pdp and vax machines, where
> there are none of the original DEC os's available to run
> legally. I can run several versions of unix from the unix
> historical society, but no DEC os's, making all that older
> hardware orphans. Did a lot of work on PDP and vax machines
> years ago, but no provision now and even have some RA60 packs
> full of that work, but are any RA60 drives alive now ?. Maybe
> in the US, but not in the uk. I'm sure all this has been done
> to death in the past here, but no solution, it seems...

Still doesn't answer the question about what licensing system Unisys
uses.

bill

On 8/9/2021 4:34 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> In article <serrmi$1akh$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam@tridac.net (chris)
> wrote:
>> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
>>>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
>>>> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
>>>> range of s/w from that site, same business.
>
> Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.
>
> Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
> hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
> hardware with Solaris.
>
> Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
> evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.

Oracle is in a lot of businesses today.

Database business.

ERP/CRM business.

Middleware business (WebLogic etc.).

I believe they are trying to get out of the HW & OS business (SPARC
servers and Solaris).

They are trying to get into the cloud business.

Arne

On 08/09/21 23:46, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

>>>
>>
>> Perhaps no one really cares about a few enthusiasts running older
>> operating systems.
>
> If you mean the Unisys I was talking about it isn't something old. It
> is their current Mainframe Software System. The comments about Univac
> 1100 and Exec-8 was merely to point out that they continue to support
> their older systems along with current technology.
>

I guess Unisys have been around long enough to realise that a few
home hackers are no threat to their business and may even encourage
it in an unofficial way. A more relaxed attitude like that is
good for business as well, rather than veiled threats about legal
action against such people. I would be more likely to support such
a company anyway. Bad attitude always gets up peoples noses.

>
>> I have several pdp and vax machines, where
>> there are none of the original DEC os's available to run
>> legally. I can run several versions of unix from the unix
>> historical society, but no DEC os's, making all that older
>> hardware orphans. Did a lot of work on PDP and vax machines
>> years ago, but no provision now and even have some RA60 packs
>> full of that work, but are any RA60 drives alive now ?. Maybe
>> in the US, but not in the uk. I'm sure all this has been done
>> to death in the past here, but no solution, it seems...
>
> Still doesn't answer the question about what licensing system Unisys
> uses.

No idea, but why don't you ask them ?...

>
> bill
>
>

On 8/9/2021 12:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/9/21 8:34 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 8/9/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/8/21 9:23 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 8/8/2021 7:07 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> Not exactly true.  While modern BASIC has c ome a long way it
>>>>> will never escape its roots which were not in the IT Production
>>>>> world.  Like Pascal it was intended to teach concepts and,
>>>>> believe it or not, one of those concepts was not programming
>>>>> per se.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting statement.  Coming from someone who admits to not being
>>>> familiar with the language.
>>>
>>> Misunderstanding, again.  What I am is not an expert in VMS BASIC.
>>> I have used BASIC since the Kemeny/Kurtz days.  I have done real
>>> production work using BASIC on everything from Micros to Mainframes.
>>> I have done business, financial and engineering programming in BASIC.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps older implementations of Basic were as described.
>>>
>>> I stated that modern BASIC had improved but that doesn't change the
>>> original purpose.  The idea of "fixing" these languages (like they
>>> also tried with Pascal even after the original author of Pascal
>>> gave them an alternative) is little more than a band-aid when you
>>> consider there were/are languages designed to do the work people
>>> try to do with these languages.
>>>
>>>> Some time back, as I recall things, some of the compiler people at DEC
>>>> asked the question, "why cannot every language be able to do what
>>>> others do?".  The result was the implementation of many new features
>>>> in Basic.
>>>
>>> Exactly.  "Lets put a band-aid on the language rather than do the proper
>>> software engineering task of choosing the right tool for the job."

>>> Simple: Choose the right tool for the job.
>>> BASIC, like Pascal was intended to teach certain concepts.  It was
>>> not intended as a production language.  Production languages existed,
>>> even when BASIC and Pascal were created.  In those days, new languages
>>> weren't just ego trips.  They were designed for particular tasks.
>>> They should be used for the tasks they were designed for. That is
>>> a major part of real software engineering.
>>
>> You seem to be implying that VMS Basic is not a "right tool for the job".
>
> Depends on the job.  I only have an inkling into just what the
> program(s) you do in BASIC are or do but I suspect from a real
> software engineering standpoint BASIC was the wrong tool.  What
> made it the right tool may have been just your familiarity with
> it.
>
>>         Does your opinion (that's what it is) out weight the opinions
>> of others?
>
> My opinion based on decades of research by people much better at this
> stuff than I am, but, yes, my opinion.  Does the CDC's opinion on how
> to handle COVID outweigh ordinary people's opinions?  They claim to be
> backed by "science".  I, too, claim to be backed by computer science.
> In the end, everyone is free to do as they please.  The discussion is
> purely academic.  I have done many things in many different fields of
> endeavor that I was told (usually after the fact) were impossible.
>
>>           There have been and still are many serious applications
>> implemented using VMS Basic.  Are all those people who use VMS Basic
>> "wrong"?
>
> "Wrong" is another of those words that can be more subjective than
> objective.  Could those applications actually be better if done
> in a more suitable language?  Probably.  Are they doing the task
> that was needed to be done.  Yes.

I guess you can take 3 different approaches to evaluating Basic.

The anecdotal approach.

Basic was created in the mid 60's specifically for teaching.

Dartmouth Basic was not that useful for real world usage.

And computer scientists soon started criticizing Basic. Including
Dijkstra "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to
students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential
programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration."

And that must mean that everything Basic will forever be bad.

The engineering approach.

Does the language has the data types, control structures, IO
support etc. to enable writing business applications.

Dartmouth Basic did not.

But VMS Basic seems to have what is needed. Data types
including decimal. Conditional and loops. Sequential and
index-sequential IO.

There are a few warts: implicit type by last character in
variable name, lack of thread safety etc..

But overall VMS Basic is no worse than other VMS
procedural language.

Good solid 1980's technology.

And if one has to chose one of those traditional
1980's VMS procedural languages (Fortran, Cobol,
Basic, Pascal, C) then Pascal and Basic seems
by far the most obvious to use - they will result in
less more readable code than the other.

VB.NET Microsoft's latest incarnation of Basic
is a full blown OOP language with some FP support.

Good solid 2000's technology.

Microsoft's previous incarnation VB6 and VBS had
some limitations but were definitely usable as well.

The empirical approach.

VMS Basic has a piece of the VMS application development
market - I don't know exactly how how big - but while
Ada, PL/I etc. are gone then Basic is still supported, so
Dave is not the only user.

VB6 and VBS (in ASP) must have been one of the worlds
most used programming languages 1995-2005. It must have
been usable.

VB.NET is definitely lacking behind C# but are still widely
used. It must be useful.

++++

Trying to evolve existing languages into a different type
of language is not always a success.

I believe nobody in the Cobol community liked OO Cobol.

Fortran 77 to Fortran 90 was really an entirely new language
and a lot of users were lost in the process.

The Ada 83 to Ada 95 made the language very complicated.

The FP stuff added to Java 8 is not pretty.

But other are more lucky.

Object-Pascal and Delphi may not be super elegant addon
of OO, but the users liked it.

VMS Basic and the later MS Basic implementation also
managed to add totally new features (full OO for VB.NET,
somewhat OO for VB6/VBS) and be popular with
users.

Basic seems to be good language to extend.

So Jon Reagan - when do we see OO in VMS Basic?

:-)

Arne

So, it looks like it is not permitted for my code to be published freely.

So the next best thing, that I can think of, is to publish a step-by-step description of the algorithm, with enough detail that anybody can write their own PAK generator program. Would you like that?

What’s that phrase I was trying to think of ... oh yes: “protected speech”.

On 8/8/2021 4:52 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-08-08 kl. 22:42, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>> On 8/7/2021 8:24 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/7/21 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
>>>>>>    integrate with
>>>>>
>>>>> With the exception of Dave's system (I actually know very little
>>>>> about VMS BASIC) I can think of no legacy system that can not be
>>>>> integrated into a modern system.  I have had no problems doing web
>>>>> programming with COBOL.
>>>>
>>>> Anything can be somewhat integrated using various hacks.
>>>
>>> I needed no hacks to get COBOL running on the web.  It's a mindset
>>> problem, not a technical one.
>>
>> Literally nay programming language can be used to write
>> a CGI script.
>>
>> But there is a very long way from the 1995 CGI scripts
>> to modern web solutions.
>>
>> Did you Cobol web app support:
>> - session sharing across cluster
>> - OAuth integration
>> - LDAP integraion
>> - verification of client certificate
>> - Redis or memcached for cache
>> - exposing status / load info to load balancer
>> - reporting stats and health check to IBM Tivoli / CA Unicenter / Zabbix
>> - reporting to Prometheus
>> - HTTP/2 push
>> - web sockets
>> - switching to in-cloud managed service for database
>> - having accept request header determine response format
>> ?

> Are we/you talkning about an application that runs "on the web"
> without any other help from a normal web server?

What is important is what the solution provide.

How that solution is implemented:
* one server communicating with scripts running in different processes
* one server running code in different modules within the process
* a standalone module including a standalone server
does not matter so much, except that the first approach tend to
make a lot of things more difficult.

> In the OpenVMS case, most of your points above would be handled
> by WASD (just as I know that one best) and the Cobol code just
> do the business logic. Maybe a small C-jacket to handle the
> CGI API against WASD also. But there is nothing stopping some
> Cobol code to be the main business logic in an web solution.

The Cobol code has no problem doing the business logic. The
problem is with the web context on top of that.

And I don't think WASD/Apache/OSU can solve much of the
above as it mostly have to be embedded in the application.

# session sharing across cluster

The web server cannot share the application's
session object across the cluster as it does not
have access to it.

# OAuth integration
# LDAP integraion

The web server can use use for accepting/denying
access to the application and pass on username,
but if the application want to query for roles
of that username, then the web server cannot help.

# verification of client certificate

Does the web server pass enough information on to
application about SSL for it to verify?

# Redis or memcached for cache

Pure application. The web server can not cache info it
does not have access to.

# exposing status / load info to load balancer

The web server can be load balanced based on general web server
status. But it will not be able to load balance based on
the state in the application.

# reporting stats and health check to IBM Tivoli / CA Unicenter / Zabbix
# reporting to Prometheus

Pure application. The web server can not provide info
it does not have access to.

# HTTP/2 push

The web server may support HTTP/2, but it cannot embed stuff
in the response by itself. And unless CGI protocol has been
heavily extended to allow passing the info, then the application
cannot pass it.

# web sockets

The web server may support it, but how does it get it to the application
via CGI?

# switching to in-cloud managed service for database

Pure application

# having accept request header determine response format

Pure application. Also definitely doable in Cobol - just
requiring a lot of lines of code to do it.

> Today, and particular on an real environment such as OpenVMS
> (not some embedded thing), I do not see why one would put all
> the functionallity, that already has been developed and debugged
> by a tool such as WASD, into your own application.

I am definitely not arguing against using an existing web server
(or application server).

That is a given. The only question is standalone or embedded.

My point is that there are technologies that:
- works with existing web servers
- provides a ton of features useful in web context that a
Cobol CGI script does not have

Arne

On 8/9/2021 7:54 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Basic was created in the mid 60's specifically for teaching.
>
> Dartmouth Basic was not that useful for real world usage.

BTW, if anyone want Dartmouth Basic, then there is an
implementation of 4th edition available here:

https://github.com/emesx/jBasic

It seems to work fine.

C:\Work>type test.bas
10 for x = 1 to 10
20 print x
30 next x
40 end

C:\Work>jbasic test.bas
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0

Arne

PS: Requires Java 8.

On 8/8/2021 7:50 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/8/21 4:42 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/7/2021 8:24 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 8/7/21 7:40 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2021 6:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
>>>>>>    integrate with
>>>>>
>>>>> With the exception of Dave's system (I actually know very little
>>>>> about VMS BASIC) I can think of no legacy system that can not be
>>>>> integrated into a modern system.  I have had no problems doing web
>>>>> programming with COBOL.
>>>>
>>>> Anything can be somewhat integrated using various hacks.
>>>
>>> I needed no hacks to get COBOL running on the web.  It's a mindset
>>> problem, not a technical one.
>>
>> Literally nay programming language can be used to write
>> a CGI script.
>>
>> But there is a very long way from the 1995 CGI scripts
>> to modern web solutions.
>>
>> Did you Cobol web app support:
>> - session sharing across cluster
>> - OAuth integration
>> - LDAP integraion
>> - verification of client certificate
>> - Redis or memcached for cache
>> - exposing status / load info to load balancer
>> - reporting stats and health check to IBM Tivoli / CA Unicenter / Zabbix
>> - reporting to Prometheus
>> - HTTP/2 push
>> - web sockets
>> - switching to in-cloud managed service for database
>> - having accept request header determine response format
>> ?
>>
>
> No, but then, neither did the PHP program I was replacing.  :-)

That may be the case.

But PHP would have supported a lot of that out of the box.

# session sharing across cluster

Supported.

(implementation is not that great as it relies on shared storage,
but it is there, and those with a need to be more
scalable can use Redis or memcached)

# OAuth integration

Extension exist.

# LDAP integraion

Supported.

(need to be anebaled at build though)

# verification of client certificate

There are ways to get the info checked and passed
by web server to PHP in $_SERVER variable.

# Redis or memcached for cache

Extensions exist.

# exposing status / load info to load balancer

Not sure.

# reporting stats and health check to IBM Tivoli / CA Unicenter / Zabbix

Supported.

# reporting to Prometheus

Client lib exist.

# HTTP/2 push

Libraries exist.

# web sockets

Library exist.

# switching to in-cloud managed service for database

If using PDO good chance that it will work.

# having accept request header determine response format

Great XML and JSON support but unlike Java and .NET an
actual if statement is needed.

Arne

On 8/9/2021 11:26 AM, chris wrote:
> On 08/09/21 13:29, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 8/9/2021 8:08 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-08, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why should VSI care about VAX?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because of expected trust and honourable behaviour on the part of
>>> the hobbyists if VSI decide to give them free access to what is
>>> otherwise an expensive product.
>>>
>>> Is this concept of honourable behaviour really so hard to understand ?
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>> As I may have mentioned, there is no need for "cheating" as long as VSI
>> exists. As long as the VSI CL program exists, there is valid usage of
>> VSI releases of VMS. So it won't happen.
>>
>> VSI has no interest in VAX. So why should they care if some hobbyists do
>> whatever necessary to continue to run VAX/VMS?
>>
>> Hobbyists enjoying the VSI CL are not hobbyists attempting to continue
>> to run VAX/VMS. VSI's releases of VMS are NOT the same as VAX/VMS. What
>> is your justification of trying to consider them both the same thing?
>>
>> But let's address the plight of VAX/VMS and how it might relate to the
>> loss of use of VSI's VMS releases. Does anyone (other than Simon) expect
>> entities who depend upon VSI's releases of VMS to keep their businesses
>> viable, and the employees who depend upon those businesses for their
>> jobs, just cease to exist if something happened to VSI?
>>
>> Read that last paragraph carefully and then explain what should happen
>> should VSI cease operations.
>>
>> Is it "honorable behaviour" to expect businesses to just give up? If
>> sos, then I do not understand.
>>
>
>
> I've said this before, but the way to get round that, what has become
> the standard business model for os's these days, is for the media to
> be free to use, but the money is made via support and patch availability
> contracts. Suse, Redhat and others have made millions via that business
> model, so we know it it does work. The majority of hobbyist users will
> never buy support, just noise in the big picture, but pro users will,
> which is where the ongoing revenue stream is to be found. Hard code LMF
> type systems just scream out: We don't trust you to do the right thing,
> not the best encouragement for sales, when the whole world and dog
> have found a better way.
>
> LMF and that sort of license business model, like department stores,
> are an idea that will never work in the modern age and won't encourage
> the curious to download vms to see how good it is. A lot of people,
> including myself, download and install various os's every year, just to
> evaluate them. Even Oracle make their os's free to use none commercially
> , with again, the money made via support contracts.

I don't have a problem with VSI requiring support for commercial use.
I've been saying that for years now. It is the way to go.

But my customers are important to me, and, I cannot promote anything
that would cripple or destroy their businesses, and their employees jobs.

I'm thinking that VSI would have similar intent, and for all we know,
there is already something to address that. We just aren't aware of it.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 8/9/2021 5:20 PM, chris wrote:
> On 08/09/21 20:16, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/9/21 12:47 PM, chris wrote:
>>> On 08/09/21 17:19, chris wrote:
>>>> business headed,
>>>
>>> Typo: business headed, should read, business model.
>>>
>>> LMF type systems belong to a past age of greed, mistrust and
>>> assumptions about customer honesty and have no place in the
>>> modern age. One of the primary reasons why vax and vms was
>>> dumped by so many uni departments and businesses, but some never
>>> learn.
>>
>> As someone who was there and fought against the removal of VMS from
>> academic circles, you are just plain wrong. No one other than the
>> administrator knew what LMF was or what it did. VMS went away from
>> academia because it was seen as old and not moving forward. It was
>> legacy. (There's that word again!!) It was dropped at the same time
>> that other legacy items like COBOL and Fortran and Pascal (and, yes,
>> Ada) were left in the dust.
>>
>>
>> Even after it left academia the schools still used it administratively.
>> It left that market when the canned packages everyone was using (like
>> Banner) dropped support for it. You would have to ask them why they
>> decided to abandon VMS. What does Oracle say about it??
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> I guess books have been written on that subject, but the OS market
> has far more choices now than in the past. Any OS trying to make
> headway needs to have as few encumbrances as possible and be simple
> to get started with. Just download, install and go, ideally. If it
> looks like hard work, people will go elsewhere...

Truth ...

The moe people exposed to VMS, the better it is for VSI ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 8/9/2021 1:48 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-09, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2021 8:08 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-08, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why should VSI care about VAX?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because of expected trust and honourable behaviour on the part of
>>> the hobbyists if VSI decide to give them free access to what is
>>> otherwise an expensive product.
>>>
>>> Is this concept of honourable behaviour really so hard to understand ?
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>> As I may have mentioned, there is no need for "cheating" as long as VSI
>> exists. As long as the VSI CL program exists, there is valid usage of
>> VSI releases of VMS. So it won't happen.
>>
>
> Yes it will if VSI terminate the hobbyist program for some reason or
> restrict its functionality for some reason.

There is, and will not be any such restrictions. The hobbyist program
is good for VMS, and what's good for VMS is good for VSI. There are
reasons hobbyist programs started, and those reasons continue to be valid.

> Given some of the sense of entitlement we have seen, some people will
> not accept that and look for ways to break the licencing on the existing
> VSI hobbyist kits before this change or retirement was made.
>
>> VSI has no interest in VAX. So why should they care if some hobbyists
>> do whatever necessary to continue to run VAX/VMS?
>>
>
> You really don't get this honourable behaviour thing do you David ?

I'm thinking that you're going way overboard with it.

> How a person conducts themself in one area can be used as an indicator
> for how they will conduct themself in another area.

I don't know the numbers, but VAX hobbyists are not x86 hobbyists.

VAX hobbyists are people interested in history, what they have used in
the past, and such.

x86 hobbyists might be more into trying out VMS to see what it can do,
and perhaps consider it for future commercial use.

> If you feel free to bypass a VAX licence, you are likely to feel free
> to bypass a VSI hobbyist licence if the VSI hobbyist program gets changed
> for some reason.

Logic says that is highly unlikely. If they were not desirable, they
would never have been started.

>> Hobbyists enjoying the VSI CL are not hobbyists attempting to continue
>> to run VAX/VMS. VSI's releases of VMS are NOT the same as VAX/VMS.
>> What is your justification of trying to consider them both the same thing?
>>
>
> I have explained that above.
>
>> But let's address the plight of VAX/VMS and how it might relate to the
>> loss of use of VSI's VMS releases. Does anyone (other than Simon)
>> expect entities who depend upon VSI's releases of VMS to keep their
>> businesses viable, and the employees who depend upon those businesses
>> for their jobs, just cease to exist if something happened to VSI?
>>
>
> You are moving the discussion away from hobbyist programs and to
> business use.

I was never concerned with the hobbyist program. I am concerned for my
customers, and that is where my loyalty lies.

> However, to answer your question: No, I don't expect them to cease to
> exist either. What I expect is for them to have done is to come up with
> plans for how they would handle the failure of a vendor if they start
> doing business with that vendor.

The plan is to do whatever is necessary.

>> Read that last paragraph carefully and then explain what should happen
>> should VSI cease operations.
>>
>
> Careful David, I'm getting told off for considering that possibility. :-)
>
>> Is it "honorable behaviour" to expect businesses to just give up? If
>> sos, then I do not understand.
>>
>
> What you should have done is before you committed to a vendor was to
> consider what you would do if that vendor goes bust one day.

That thinking might do away with vendors.

> And to their credit, it looks like everyone is doing this. Why do you
> think there is such a strong negative reaction to the time limited
> production licences ?

I'm confident VSI will be listening to paying customers. Perhaps not so
much to c.o.v.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

Op dinsdag 10 augustus 2021 om 01:20:04 UTC+2 schreef Arne Vajhøj:
> On 8/9/2021 4:34 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> > In article <serrmi$1akh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, chris-...@tridac.net (chris)
> > wrote:
> >> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
> >>>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
> >>>> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
> >>>> range of s/w from that site, same business.
> >
> > Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.
> >
> > Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
> > hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
> > hardware with Solaris.
> >
> > Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
> > evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.
> Oracle is in a lot of businesses today.
>
> Database business.
>
> ERP/CRM business.
>
> Middleware business (WebLogic etc.).
>
> I believe they are trying to get out of the HW & OS business (SPARC
> servers and Solaris).
>
> They are trying to get into the cloud business.
>
> Arne
I thought Oracle was a law firm.

Oswald

In article <serhfr$f1o$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:

> Even Oracle make their os's free to use none commercially,
> with again, the money made via support contracts.

Unless there has been a big change, that is NOT true of Rdb. At least
at one time one could download a kit (not the latest) with no support if
one were DEVELOPING a COMMERCIAL application. While that is
non-commercial (as long as it doesn't make money), it is a SMALL subset
of non-commercial use and definitely NOT some sort of hobbyist or
community license.

As for folks wondering why VSI could possibly care about VAX: If the
message that gets through is that (some subset of) VMS users don't
care about being legal, then VSI might think that continuing the
Community License is a bad idea since some people might abuse it in
order to avoid a commercial license. Saying "MY type if illegal use is
justified but some other type is not" doesn't cut it. If people
respected only the laws they agree with, then there would be no need for
laws. Another possibility is that it gives them a reason to stick to
subscription licenses, since non-expiring licenses would allow people to
continue without paying support.

People can debate about how likely various scenarios are. Personally,
I'm concerned that a few loud people give the (hopefully wrong)
impression that most hobbyists don't care about sticking to the rules
and that that could adversely affect the Community License and maybe
even strengthen the case for subscription as opposed to non-expiring
licenses.