In article <8545c837-fdb5-43aa-ad02-2273ea39e918n@googlegroups.com>,
David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> writes:

> Now is there is no guarantee VMS will be available long term - its continued
> availability depends on it being profitable. If VSI is not replacing every customer
> that leaves then eventually everyone who is not the original owner of a permanent
> license will find themselves in the same situation as VAX hobbyists.

That is indeed sad, but open-sourcing VMS is not the only solution.

On 11/24/2021 2:26 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 8:19:21 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> On 11/22/2021 1:36 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
>> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
>> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
>> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
>> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
>> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
>
> It has been some years since RMS had any real influence. Most open-source
> software is unaffiliated with the Free Software Foundation or the GNU project.
> Quite a lot these days is built by companies like Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and
> Google.
>
>>
>>> BTW: OpenVMS customers REJECTED an offer to open-source OpenVMS. Yes.
>>> Really. Outright rejected that. Put slightly differently, some of the
>>> open-source preferences around here can be... unexpected. Even among
>>> folks that have worked with OpenVMS for decades.
>> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
>> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
>> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
>> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
>> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
>> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
>>
>> Has VMS been handled badly by its owners, including DEC? Sure. Should
>> the solution be open source? Probably not. The world is not black and
>> white, though it seems that more and more people try to see it that way,
>> e.g. either one supports Trump or one is woke. Whatever happened to
>> old-fashioned common sense?
>
> If it had been open sourced then VAX hobbyists wouldn't be loosing access
> to OpenVMS at the end of this year. Same goes for people with older Alpha
> hardware.
>
> I think the main thing open-sourcing it would have achieved is securing *a*
> future for it. It would have guaranteed access indefinitely to anyone with an
> interest in running it.
>
> Now is there is no guarantee VMS will be available long term - its continued
> availability depends on it being profitable. If VSI is not replacing every customer
> that leaves then eventually everyone who is not the original owner of a permanent
> license will find themselves in the same situation as VAX hobbyists.
>

As usual, not black or white. just shades of grey.

As I read posts here in c.o.v, some of which deplore some of the parts of VMS,
as in the recent discussion about ASTs and the R0,R1,etc arguments, I have to
wonder what might happen to an "open" VMS. Might some of the fanatical
"do-gooders" start upgrading or replacing some of the things that makes VMS
upward compatible? Might some C programmers decide they didn't need Macro-32,
Basic, Fortran, Cobol, and such? Might the desire for OO make many existing
applications no longer usable? Where might such a thing go?

One consideration, when one is paying a vendor for a product, they have someone
who must listen to their needs, at least if they want the customer to continue
to pay them. One then asks, what leverage does users have over those "core"
people in that rust thingy?

As I mentioned, grey. I think there might be some decent arguments to make the
OS free and open, while maintainers such as VSI makes their money with support
and such. There might also be some valid arguments against.

Never forget, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

--
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 11/24/2021 3:44 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:20:55 AM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 11/24/2021 2:26 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 8:19:21 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2021 1:36 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> BTW: OpenVMS customers REJECTED an offer to open-source OpenVMS. Yes.
>>>>> Really. Outright rejected that. Put slightly differently, some of the
>>>>> open-source preferences around here can be... unexpected. Even among
>>>>> folks that have worked with OpenVMS for decades.
>>>> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
>>>> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
>>>> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
>>>> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
>>>> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
>>>> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
>>>>
>>>> Has VMS been handled badly by its owners, including DEC? Sure. Should
>>>> the solution be open source? Probably not. The world is not black and
>>>> white, though it seems that more and more people try to see it that way,
>>>> e.g. either one supports Trump or one is woke. Whatever happened to
>>>> old-fashioned common sense?
>>>
>>> If it had been open sourced then VAX hobbyists wouldn't be loosing access
>>> to OpenVMS at the end of this year. Same goes for people with older Alpha
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>> I think the main thing open-sourcing it would have achieved is securing *a*
>>> future for it. It would have guaranteed access indefinitely to anyone with an
>>> interest in running it.
>>>
>>> Now is there is no guarantee VMS will be available long term - its continued
>>> availability depends on it being profitable. If VSI is not replacing every customer
>>> that leaves then eventually everyone who is not the original owner of a permanent
>>> license will find themselves in the same situation as VAX hobbyists.
>> I don't think there is much point as I don't think VSI can make VMS
>> open source and HPE won't make VMS open source.
>>
>> But even if they could and would, then I am not so sure about how
>> well it would work out.
>>
>> The VMS community is notorious for how few that actually contribute
>> to open source, so the VMS community could not drive the development.
>>
>> VSI can drive the development, but need to make money. Redhat makes
>> a lot of money from Linux, but there is a lot of Linux systems out there
>> and Redhat can keep the price so low that their commercial offering
>> still sell despite various free clones. But VMS does not have that
>> volume.
>
> Yeah, it seems unlikely the OpenVMS community would jump in and keep
> the operating system alive. But I expect if the code was available someone
> would eventually compile it and a free distribution of OpenVMS would then
> exist.
>
> Supposedly HPE was considering open-sourcing it but if that was ever going
> to happen it had to happen back when HPE announced OpenVMS was dead.
> When there were still people at HPE who knew what OpenVMS was and
> before VSI stepped in. I expect by the time OpenVMS is no longer
> commercially viable at VSI there will be no one left at HPE with the ability
> to open-source it. Most likely at some point in the next few decades
> OpenVMS will join Tru64, Ultrix and all the other operating systems that can
> not be licensed anymore.
>

Got to ask, what HW did/does those old OSs run on? VAX is no more. Alpha is no
more. Itanic is no more. Anything HP could open up has no HW to run on. So
what does it matter whether it's open or not?

The only reasonable source for an OpenVMS is VSI, and only after they complete
the port, and most likely some other things. Their deal with HP, as far as
those not at VSI knows, precludes an "open" OpenVMS. So it's not anything but a
conversation thing.

With the soon end of valid hobbyist licenses for VAX/VMS, it would not surprise
me to see a distribution of VAX/VMS V7.3 patched to avoid all license PAK
checking. Methods are already known. The capabilities to do so exist. All it
takes is one entity willing to do so.

Yes, there will be those who deplore the violation of copyright and ownership.
There will also be those willing to use such a distribution. Just don't blame
me, I have a valid license.

--
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 Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:34:52 AM UTC+13, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/24/2021 2:26 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 8:19:21 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2021 1:36 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> >>
> >> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
> >> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
> >> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
> >> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
> >> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
> >> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
> >
> > It has been some years since RMS had any real influence. Most open-source
> > software is unaffiliated with the Free Software Foundation or the GNU project.
> > Quite a lot these days is built by companies like Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and
> > Google.
> >
> >>
> >>> BTW: OpenVMS customers REJECTED an offer to open-source OpenVMS. Yes.
> >>> Really. Outright rejected that. Put slightly differently, some of the
> >>> open-source preferences around here can be... unexpected. Even among
> >>> folks that have worked with OpenVMS for decades.
> >> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
> >> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
> >> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
> >> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
> >> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
> >> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
> >>
> >> Has VMS been handled badly by its owners, including DEC? Sure. Should
> >> the solution be open source? Probably not. The world is not black and
> >> white, though it seems that more and more people try to see it that way,
> >> e.g. either one supports Trump or one is woke. Whatever happened to
> >> old-fashioned common sense?
> >
> > If it had been open sourced then VAX hobbyists wouldn't be loosing access
> > to OpenVMS at the end of this year. Same goes for people with older Alpha
> > hardware.
> >
> > I think the main thing open-sourcing it would have achieved is securing *a*
> > future for it. It would have guaranteed access indefinitely to anyone with an
> > interest in running it.
> >
> > Now is there is no guarantee VMS will be available long term - its continued
> > availability depends on it being profitable. If VSI is not replacing every customer
> > that leaves then eventually everyone who is not the original owner of a permanent
> > license will find themselves in the same situation as VAX hobbyists.
> >
> As usual, not black or white. just shades of grey.
>
> As I read posts here in c.o.v, some of which deplore some of the parts of VMS,
> as in the recent discussion about ASTs and the R0,R1,etc arguments, I have to
> wonder what might happen to an "open" VMS. Might some of the fanatical
> "do-gooders" start upgrading or replacing some of the things that makes VMS
> upward compatible? Might some C programmers decide they didn't need Macro-32,
> Basic, Fortran, Cobol, and such? Might the desire for OO make many existing
> applications no longer usable? Where might such a thing go?

If OpenVMS were ever open-sourced my bet would be on no significant changes
at all. No doubt someone would try to get the source code to compile which might
result in a free version of OpenVMS. Perhaps some companies who still depend on
it would employ some people to fix problems as they occur - providing their own
support effectively (as some large companies do in the Linux world).

Possibly some "do-gooder" might start some project to make drastic changes but
OpenVMS is probably far too obscure and incompatible to attract a large enough
number of developers from the Linux world to make such a project viable.

If there ever were an open-source OpenVMS any changes would almost certainly
come down to the OpenVMS community. And the OpenVMS community seems
little interested in making changes.

This is perhaps the biggest argument against open-sourcing it really. The OpenVMS
community doesn't seem to care so the only thing to really be achieved is historic
preservation.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 10:51:02 AM UTC+13, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/24/2021 3:44 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 9:20:55 AM UTC+13, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> On 11/24/2021 2:26 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 8:19:21 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>>> On 11/22/2021 1:36 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> >>>>> BTW: OpenVMS customers REJECTED an offer to open-source OpenVMS. Yes.
> >>>>> Really. Outright rejected that. Put slightly differently, some of the
> >>>>> open-source preferences around here can be... unexpected. Even among
> >>>>> folks that have worked with OpenVMS for decades.
> >>>> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
> >>>> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
> >>>> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
> >>>> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
> >>>> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
> >>>> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Has VMS been handled badly by its owners, including DEC? Sure. Should
> >>>> the solution be open source? Probably not. The world is not black and
> >>>> white, though it seems that more and more people try to see it that way,
> >>>> e.g. either one supports Trump or one is woke. Whatever happened to
> >>>> old-fashioned common sense?
> >>>
> >>> If it had been open sourced then VAX hobbyists wouldn't be loosing access
> >>> to OpenVMS at the end of this year. Same goes for people with older Alpha
> >>> hardware.
> >>>
> >>> I think the main thing open-sourcing it would have achieved is securing *a*
> >>> future for it. It would have guaranteed access indefinitely to anyone with an
> >>> interest in running it.
> >>>
> >>> Now is there is no guarantee VMS will be available long term - its continued
> >>> availability depends on it being profitable. If VSI is not replacing every customer
> >>> that leaves then eventually everyone who is not the original owner of a permanent
> >>> license will find themselves in the same situation as VAX hobbyists.
> >> I don't think there is much point as I don't think VSI can make VMS
> >> open source and HPE won't make VMS open source.
> >>
> >> But even if they could and would, then I am not so sure about how
> >> well it would work out.
> >>
> >> The VMS community is notorious for how few that actually contribute
> >> to open source, so the VMS community could not drive the development.
> >>
> >> VSI can drive the development, but need to make money. Redhat makes
> >> a lot of money from Linux, but there is a lot of Linux systems out there
> >> and Redhat can keep the price so low that their commercial offering
> >> still sell despite various free clones. But VMS does not have that
> >> volume.
> >
> > Yeah, it seems unlikely the OpenVMS community would jump in and keep
> > the operating system alive. But I expect if the code was available someone
> > would eventually compile it and a free distribution of OpenVMS would then
> > exist.
> >
> > Supposedly HPE was considering open-sourcing it but if that was ever going
> > to happen it had to happen back when HPE announced OpenVMS was dead.
> > When there were still people at HPE who knew what OpenVMS was and
> > before VSI stepped in. I expect by the time OpenVMS is no longer
> > commercially viable at VSI there will be no one left at HPE with the ability
> > to open-source it. Most likely at some point in the next few decades
> > OpenVMS will join Tru64, Ultrix and all the other operating systems that can
> > not be licensed anymore.
> >
> Got to ask, what HW did/does those old OSs run on? VAX is no more. Alpha is no
> more. Itanic is no more. Anything HP could open up has no HW to run on. So
> what does it matter whether it's open or not?

Historic preservation.

Its interesting exploring an era of computing I never got to experience first hand using
real hardware. Something people can no longer do unless they've either got a lot of
money or are willing to break the law.

An open-source OpenVMS would have fixed this (though not as well as a non-expiring
hobbyist license - I liked playing with even older versions too). But the opportunity, if
there ever was one, has passed.

On 2021-11-24, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> As I read posts here in c.o.v, some of which deplore some of the parts of VMS,
> as in the recent discussion about ASTs and the R0,R1,etc arguments, I have to
> wonder what might happen to an "open" VMS. Might some of the fanatical
> "do-gooders" start upgrading or replacing some of the things that makes VMS
> upward compatible? Might some C programmers decide they didn't need Macro-32,
> Basic, Fortran, Cobol, and such? Might the desire for OO make many existing
> applications no longer usable? Where might such a thing go?
>

Due to the monolithic mass of integrated code which is _not_ cleanly
broken into clean interfaces, upgrading the internals of VMS is massively
harder than doing the same things elsewhere.

For one really simple example, adding a new filesystem to Linux is easy
(and can be done by end user organisations) because Linux has a nice
clean internal filesystem architecture.

VMS is a monolithic ugly mass of intertwined filesystem code by comparison.

Simon.

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