In article <serm6d$onk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:
> 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.

So people are less greedy now than 20 or 30 years ago? I doubt that.

> Similar problems with embedded development tools, and compilers
> in the past, where the software install was node locked,
> sometimes with a dongle as well. Endless problems if it was
> necessary to install on different machine, with vendors even
> charging a fat fee for the "privilege". Open source tools
> changed that forever, just as open source operating systems
> changed the os market as well.
>
> Dump LMF comletely, free to download and evaluate or for non
> commercial use, but subscription support contract model for
> ongoing patches and updates, jsut as everyone else does...

If you want open-source software, use it, but that is irrelevant to the
discussion of VMS, since VMS is not open source.

On 8/10/2021 1:30 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> 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.

But then Rdb is not an OS ...

> 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.

Oracle allows free development for a lot of their products.

Arne

On 8/10/21 1:30 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> 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.

When did Rdb become an OS?

bill

On 8/10/21 1:34 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <serm6d$onk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:
>> 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.
>
> So people are less greedy now than 20 or 30 years ago? I doubt that.

I don't know about greedy, but as far as the IT world is concerned
they are certainly less honest than they were 30 years ago.

>
>> Similar problems with embedded development tools, and compilers
>> in the past, where the software install was node locked,
>> sometimes with a dongle as well. Endless problems if it was
>> necessary to install on different machine, with vendors even
>> charging a fat fee for the "privilege". Open source tools
>> changed that forever, just as open source operating systems
>> changed the os market as well.
>>
>> Dump LMF comletely, free to download and evaluate or for non
>> commercial use, but subscription support contract model for
>> ongoing patches and updates, jsut as everyone else does...
>
> If you want open-source software, use it, but that is irrelevant to the
> discussion of VMS, since VMS is not open source.
>

It has little to do with the concept of Open Source and a lot
to do with the modern day concept of entitlement.

bill

On 8/10/2021 1:34 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <serm6d$onk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:
>> 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.
>
> So people are less greedy now than 20 or 30 years ago? I doubt that.
>
>> Similar problems with embedded development tools, and compilers
>> in the past, where the software install was node locked,
>> sometimes with a dongle as well. Endless problems if it was
>> necessary to install on different machine, with vendors even
>> charging a fat fee for the "privilege". Open source tools
>> changed that forever, just as open source operating systems
>> changed the os market as well.
>>
>> Dump LMF comletely, free to download and evaluate or for non
>> commercial use, but subscription support contract model for
>> ongoing patches and updates, jsut as everyone else does...
>
> If you want open-source software, use it, but that is irrelevant to the
> discussion of VMS, since VMS is not open source.
>

The thing is, he isn't talking about "open software" as it's generally
understood. He's talking about ease of access to any software for
non-commercial use.

This ease of access is definitely useful to software vendors. People
cannot "buy" what they don't know about.

As for the few who worry about "cheaters", most reputable businesses
audit their software usage to insure they are completely legal.

No business wants to be know as "cheaters", because the reputation may
spread far beyond it's use of software. They can be in big trouble if
people avoid purchasing their products due to a bad reputation.

Will there be a few unreputable users? There is always the few, in just
about anything, and you'll never reform them, and it's not worth the
trouble to try to do so. The "hit" you may take with reputable
customers just isn't worth 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 10/08/2021 19:42, Dave Froble wrote:

>
> Will there be a few unreputable users?  There is always the few, in just
> about anything, and you'll never reform them, and it's not worth the
> trouble to try to do so.  The "hit" you may take with reputable
> customers just isn't worth it.
>

There are whole countries - China, Russia etc that don't believe they
should pay for software...

--
Chris

Den 2021-08-10 kl. 19:47, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 8/10/2021 1:30 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> 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.
>
> But then Rdb is not an OS ...
>
>>                                                              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.
>
> Oracle allows free development for a lot of their products.
>

I think that is generally true for any product in the "Enterprise" class.
There is an Enterprise version of Oracle "classic" and any Rdb version
(there is really only one for each platform) is always "Enterprise".
So Rdb is always free for your development system, as I understand.
Test and prod is differnt and with weird rules.

We where quoted for Rdb on a new 2 CPU DS25 Alpha test system. Oracle
claimed that the lowest quote was 25 "users" per CPU or 50 users in
our case. For a test box with at most 2 developers testing new stuff.
That project was canned, Rdb was about 5 times the VMS cost and 10
times the cost of the DS25 hardware. For a test system...

The reason for the 2 CPU DS25 as a test system is that this box is
also the backup system for the prod environment. It must be configured
the same was as the normal prod system...

> Arne

On 8/10/21 3:44 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 19:42, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>>
>> Will there be a few unreputable users?  There is always the few, in
>> just about anything, and you'll never reform them, and it's not worth
>> the trouble to try to do so.  The "hit" you may take with reputable
>> customers just isn't worth it.
>>
>
> There are whole countries - China, Russia etc that don't believe they
> should pay for software...
>

I started to go there but opted to let it pass. :-)

bill

On 8/10/2021 3:57 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-08-10 kl. 19:47, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>> On 8/10/2021 1:30 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>                                                              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.
>>
>> Oracle allows free development for a lot of their products.
>
> I think that is generally true for any product in the "Enterprise" class.
> There is an Enterprise version of Oracle "classic" and any Rdb version
> (there is really only one for each platform) is always "Enterprise".
> So Rdb is always free for your development system, as I understand.
> Test and prod is differnt and with weird rules.
>
> We where quoted for Rdb on a new 2 CPU DS25 Alpha test system. Oracle
> claimed that the lowest quote was 25 "users" per CPU or 50 users in
> our case. For a test box with at most 2 developers testing new stuff.
> That project was canned, Rdb was about 5 times the VMS cost and 10
> times the cost of the DS25 hardware. For a test system...

Oracle pricing can be "a bit high".

:-)

Has anyone gotten a message from Oracle about how Rdb will
be licensed on x86-64?

Traditional Oracle licensing would be a list price if 47500 dollars
per 2 cores of CPU.

And Oracle traditionally count all cores in the physical
box not VCPU's allocated to VM unless Oracle VM software
is used.

And with modern 16/24/32 core CPU's then that would
be "a bit pricey".

Arne

Den 2021-08-10 kl. 22:49, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 8/10/2021 3:57 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2021-08-10 kl. 19:47, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>> On 8/10/2021 1:30 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>>                                                              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.
>>>
>>> Oracle allows free development for a lot of their products.
>>
>> I think that is generally true for any product in the "Enterprise" class.
>> There is an Enterprise version of Oracle "classic" and any Rdb version
>> (there is really only one for each platform) is always "Enterprise".
>> So Rdb is always free for your development system, as I understand.
>> Test and prod is differnt and with weird rules.
>>
>> We where quoted for Rdb on a new 2 CPU DS25 Alpha test system. Oracle
>> claimed that the lowest quote was 25 "users" per CPU or 50 users in
>> our case. For a test box with at most 2 developers testing new stuff.
>> That project was canned, Rdb was about 5 times the VMS cost and 10
>> times the cost of the DS25 hardware. For a test system...
>
> Oracle pricing can be "a bit high".
>
> :-)
>
> Has anyone gotten a message from Oracle about how Rdb will
> be licensed on x86-64?
>
> Traditional Oracle licensing would be a list price if 47500 dollars
> per 2 cores of CPU.
>
> And Oracle traditionally count all cores in the physical
> box not VCPU's allocated to VM unless Oracle VM software
> is used.
>
> And with modern 16/24/32 core CPU's then that would
> be "a bit pricey".
>
> Arne
>

That is the "full system" pricing. You can also ask for a "per user"
quote and compare the outcome. But note that there is a min quote of
25 "users" per core. And also, Oracle prices are usually highly
negotiable, reductions of up to 50% has been seen.

On 08/10/21 20:44, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 19:42, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>>
>> Will there be a few unreputable users? There is always the few, in
>> just about anything, and you'll never reform them, and it's not worth
>> the trouble to try to do so. The "hit" you may take with reputable
>> customers just isn't worth it.
>>
>
> There are whole countries - China, Russia etc that don't believe they
> should pay for software...
>

Well, you'll never reform them to do the right thing, ever, and such
people will always find ways to get round any encryption or other
access controls. You have to take that hit, but that sort of cheating
isn't limited to software, but anything that can be copied or used
without paying for it.

So again, make it free to access and use for none commercial purposes
and you no longer need a hobbyist program. The pro end of the market
will always do the right thing, for the reasons that David has been
discussing. The more open to use it is, without impediment, the greater
the traction in terms of evaluation by the curious, or those that want
to learn about it, making it easier to create the skill base needed if
VMS is going to survive lomg term. Need to get it out there...

On 8/10/2021 5:00 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-08-10 kl. 22:49, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>> Has anyone gotten a message from Oracle about how Rdb will
>> be licensed on x86-64?
>>
>> Traditional Oracle licensing would be a list price if 47500 dollars
>> per 2 cores of CPU.
>>
>> And Oracle traditionally count all cores in the physical
>> box not VCPU's allocated to VM unless Oracle VM software
>> is used.
>>
>> And with modern 16/24/32 core CPU's then that would
>> be "a bit pricey".
>
> That is the "full system" pricing. You can also ask for a "per user"
> quote and compare the outcome. But note that there is a min quote of
> 25 "users" per core. And also, Oracle prices are usually highly
> negotiable, reductions of up to 50% has been seen.

With such prices they can afford some serious discounts.

But the question is very relevant.

Unless Oracle changes policies then Rdb customers will either
need to use Oracle virtualization software or go hunting
for super-low-end servers with very few cores.

Arne

On 10/08/2021 23:55, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/10/2021 5:00 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2021-08-10 kl. 22:49, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>> Has anyone gotten a message from Oracle about how Rdb will
>>> be licensed on x86-64?
>>>
>>> Traditional Oracle licensing would be a list price if 47500 dollars
>>> per 2 cores of CPU.
>>>
>>> And Oracle traditionally count all cores in the physical
>>> box not VCPU's allocated to VM unless Oracle VM software
>>> is used.
>>>
>>> And with modern 16/24/32 core CPU's then that would
>>> be "a bit pricey".
>>
>> That is the "full system" pricing. You can also ask for a "per user"
>> quote and compare the outcome. But note that there is a min quote of
>> 25 "users" per core. And also, Oracle prices are usually highly
>> negotiable, reductions of up to 50% has been seen.
>
> With such prices they can afford some serious discounts.
>
> But the question is very relevant.
>
> Unless Oracle changes policies then Rdb customers will either
> need to use Oracle virtualization software or go hunting
> for super-low-end servers with very few cores.
>
> Arne

Isn't that why many firms move or MySQL, or similar?

We were an Oracle house, but migrated what we could off it. Sadly we
couldn't move two major apps. The Oracle audit was always an issue...

--
Chris

On 8/10/2021 3:44 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 19:42, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>>
>> Will there be a few unreputable users? There is always the few, in
>> just about anything, and you'll never reform them, and it's not worth
>> the trouble to try to do so. The "hit" you may take with reputable
>> customers just isn't worth it.
>>
>
> There are whole countries - China, Russia etc that don't believe they
> should pay for software...
>

If they are not going to pay, then there isn't much you can do about it.
Well, maybe nuke them ....

But if you're not going to get paid, regardless, then what is the loss
if they use or don't use the software?

--
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 8/10/2021 7:01 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 23:55, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/10/2021 5:00 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> Den 2021-08-10 kl. 22:49, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>>>> Has anyone gotten a message from Oracle about how Rdb will
>>>> be licensed on x86-64?
>>>>
>>>> Traditional Oracle licensing would be a list price if 47500 dollars
>>>> per 2 cores of CPU.
>>>>
>>>> And Oracle traditionally count all cores in the physical
>>>> box not VCPU's allocated to VM unless Oracle VM software
>>>> is used.
>>>>
>>>> And with modern 16/24/32 core CPU's then that would
>>>> be "a bit pricey".
>>>
>>> That is the "full system" pricing. You can also ask for a "per user"
>>> quote and compare the outcome. But note that there is a min quote of
>>> 25 "users" per core. And also, Oracle prices are usually highly
>>> negotiable, reductions of up to 50% has been seen.
>>
>> With such prices they can afford some serious discounts.
>>
>> But the question is very relevant.
>>
>> Unless Oracle changes policies then Rdb customers will either
>> need to use Oracle virtualization software or go hunting
>> for super-low-end servers with very few cores.
>
> Isn't that why many firms move or MySQL, or similar?
>
> We were an Oracle house, but migrated what we could off it. Sadly we
> couldn't move two major apps. The Oracle audit was always an issue...

Oracle DB is still selling fine.

But MySQL/MariaDB and PostgreSQL has certainly grown in market share
the last 1-2 decades.

How much is because Oracle price level is too high and how
much is because Oracle price structure is weird and how much
is because everybody dreads Oracle license audits and how
much is due to better support for the open source in some of
all the new stuff being used I don't know.

Arne

On Wednesday, 11 August 2021 at 7:00:41 am UTC+10, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-08-10 kl. 22:49, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> > On 8/10/2021 3:57 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> >> Den 2021-08-10 kl. 19:47, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> >>> On 8/10/2021 1:30 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Oracle allows free development for a lot of their products.
> >>
> >> I think that is generally true for any product in the "Enterprise" class.
> >> There is an Enterprise version of Oracle "classic" and any Rdb version
> >> (there is really only one for each platform) is always "Enterprise".
> >> So Rdb is always free for your development system, as I understand.
> >> Test and prod is differnt and with weird rules.
> >>
> >> We where quoted for Rdb on a new 2 CPU DS25 Alpha test system. Oracle
> >> claimed that the lowest quote was 25 "users" per CPU or 50 users in
> >> our case. For a test box with at most 2 developers testing new stuff.
> >> That project was canned, Rdb was about 5 times the VMS cost and 10
> >> times the cost of the DS25 hardware. For a test system...
> >
> > Oracle pricing can be "a bit high".
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Has anyone gotten a message from Oracle about how Rdb will
> > be licensed on x86-64?
> >
> > Traditional Oracle licensing would be a list price if 47500 dollars
> > per 2 cores of CPU.
> >
> > And Oracle traditionally count all cores in the physical
> > box not VCPU's allocated to VM unless Oracle VM software
> > is used.
> >
> > And with modern 16/24/32 core CPU's then that would
> > be "a bit pricey".
> >
> > Arne
> >
> That is the "full system" pricing. You can also ask for a "per user"
> quote and compare the outcome. But note that there is a min quote of
> 25 "users" per core. And also, Oracle prices are usually highly
> negotiable, reductions of up to 50% has been seen.

The trick there is to time your negotiations so they can book an order just before the end of financial year (end of May)
This also applies to quarters (end of Aug Nov Feb)

The salesperson always want their money NOW

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> 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.
>
That is not how I experienced it at the Dutch universities. VMS was
dropped because the new RISC-machines (SUN i.e.) were much much
cheaper.(Universities never have enough money and computing is normally
at the "bottom" of the budget).

However Fortran was never abandoned. Here in the physics department, the
most important applications are written in Fortran, since that language
is very suitable for heavy calculations on multi-dimensional arrays.

Jouk

On 8/11/21 6:44 AM, Joukj wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> That is not how I experienced it at the Dutch universities. VMS was
> dropped because the new RISC-machines (SUN i.e.) were much much
> cheaper.(Universities never have enough money and computing is normally
> at the "bottom" of the budget).

That was my point. It had nothing to do with LMF or what anyone thought
of it.

>
> However Fortran was never abandoned. Here in the physics department, the
> most important applications are written in Fortran, since that language
> is very suitable for heavy calculations on multi-dimensional arrays.

Yes, but does your Computer Science Department still teach it or are
the engineering students learning it on their own or through the
engineering department?

bill

Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-07, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suspect that it is "Hobbyists" that are and are likely to continue
>> using pakgen.c. I doubt any legitimate business would as the legal
>> implications (even without VSI being involved) as a serious concern.
>> You don't think the auditors or legal department would be looking at
>> this?
>>
>
> Before Windows online activation was created, how many people reused
> the same licence key on different PCs ? In other words, how many people
> had more PCs than licences for the software which ran on them ?
>
But the M$soft is even worse with licensing: They try (and succeed) to
get license fees from people who will never use their product: Ever
tried to buy a laptop for home use without Windows installed in order to
run Linux? I never succeeded.

Jouk

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/7/21 4:33 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <in7b49Ffdh3U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
>> <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> writes:

> You know, our legal department refused permission to sign
> the license for the last Edu Program offered by HP. I
> hardly expect they would have allowed generation of our
> own licenses using pakgen.c.
>

The licenses I got for the HP EDU program had no end date....

Jouk

Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:35 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-08-07, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It has occurred to me that VSI should have the opportunity to know who
>>> is using x86 VMS. From the beginning, they implement some sort of
>>> reporting scheme. For VMS to run, it has to check in with VSI. There
>>> may be situations where such is not feasible, but, that can also be
>>> handled.
>>>
>>
>> SOD THAT !!!!!
>
> I didn't say it would be a good idea, it was just something I thought
> of. Something like that would have been much harder (or impossible) in
> the 1970s and 1980s. But today, the concept of always knowing who is
> running VMS might be interesting.
>
> Perhaps it would require all VSI employees to have a top secret clearance.
>
> :-)
And probably they break the European privacy laws.

Jouk

>
> I have always thought the worst professors were those who had
> never been anything but students and professors. Professors
> who had held real jobs in their field always seemed better to
> me.
>
Why is being a researcher/lecturer at a university not a real job?

Jouk

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 7:58:13 AM UTC-4, Joukj wrote:
> >
> > I have always thought the worst professors were those who had
> > never been anything but students and professors. Professors
> > who had held real jobs in their field always seemed better to
> > me.
> >
> Why is being a researcher/lecturer at a university not a real job?
>
> Jouk
Perhaps the phrase used was not the bet, but the intent of the comment is true and I agree with it.

Those that have never worked in IT except for teaching classes don't have a feel for the real world. What is stated in books is usually the "ideal" and is never seen in actual application. This is not unique to the IT world either. I was working as a manager while in college and mistakenly took a management class. The "teacher" clearly had never worked as a manager at a real business as the things being taught would never have worked at a real business. Similarly, methods taught in many CS courses would not work in a real environment either. With this as the premise, the statement about "real jobs" references experience outside of academia where the environment is different.

On 8/11/21 7:58 AM, Joukj wrote:
>>
>> I have always thought the worst professors were those who had
>> never been anything but students and professors.  Professors
>> who had held real jobs in their field always seemed better to
>> me.
>>
> Why is being a researcher/lecturer at a university not a real job?
>

Because they have no real understanding about what is involved in
production IT. There is nothing worse than a professor saying to
a classroom full of students: "and this is what you will find when
you get out in the workplace " when they have never been out in
the workplace and are totally wrong.

Why do you think they stopped teaching COBOL (and other "legacy"
languages, but mostly COBOL) claiming it was a dead language with
no one still using it when there were millions of lines of COBOL
in use every day by major industries and by two of the largest
ISes in the world. Here we are 30 years later and there is still
new COBOL being written every day.

bill

In article <sf0cln$13c4$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Joukj <joukj@hrem.nano.tudelft.nl> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > On 8/7/21 4:33 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >> In article <in7b49Ffdh3U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
> >> <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > You know, our legal department refused permission to sign
> > the license for the last Edu Program offered by HP. I
> > hardly expect they would have allowed generation of our
> > own licenses using pakgen.c.
> >
>
> The licenses I got for the HP EDU program had no end date....

But is OPENVMS-ALPHA one of them, or are they layered products only?