Den 2022-07-31 kl. 23:22, skrev Robert A. Brooks:
> On 7/29/2022 3:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2022-07-29 20:04, abrsvc wrote:
>
>>>  From what I recall, VSI bought the rights to Alpha and Itanium along
>>> with the rights to create the X86 variants.  VSI does not have the
>>> rights to do anything with VAX versions at all.  HP retains the rights
>>> to allow/disallow any licensing for VAX machines or emulated VAXes.  All
>>> licensing for these are handled through HP Financial.  This includes
>>> both the purchase of licenses as well as transfers.
>>
>> That was the belief of a lot of people, but VSI (or people from VSI)
>> publicly corrected that belief in this newsgroup some time ago. They do
>> have the rights also to the VAX bits. But there isn't even a snowballs
>> chance in hell that they will build a new VAX version, it has been said.
>> And VSI cannot issue any licenses for HPE versions of VMS, which is why
>> the VAX is in such a limbo.
>
> What Johnny has written is 100% correct.
>

VSI doesn't have any right to issue any licenses to *any* VMS/OpenVMS
version, no matter the platform/architecture, if it isn't a version
issued by VSI. Such as any Alpha or IA64 version that was issued
from HP/HPE (or earlier).

It has to be a VAX kit built by VSI, and that (as has already been
said) will simply not happen.

That VSI should take the work to build an VAX kit just to satisfy
a few hobbyists, is ridiculous...

On 7/31/2022 4:30 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-07-31 kl. 23:22, skrev Robert A. Brooks:
>> On 7/29/2022 3:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2022-07-29 20:04, abrsvc wrote:
>>
>>>>  From what I recall, VSI bought the rights to Alpha and Itanium
>>>> along with the rights to create the X86 variants.  VSI does not have
>>>> the rights to do anything with VAX versions at all.  HP retains the
>>>> rights to allow/disallow any licensing for VAX machines or emulated
>>>> VAXes.  All licensing for these are handled through HP Financial.
>>>> This includes both the purchase of licenses as well as transfers.
>>>
>>> That was the belief of a lot of people, but VSI (or people from VSI)
>>> publicly corrected that belief in this newsgroup some time ago. They
>>> do have the rights also to the VAX bits. But there isn't even a
>>> snowballs chance in hell that they will build a new VAX version, it
>>> has been said.
>>> And VSI cannot issue any licenses for HPE versions of VMS, which is
>>> why the VAX is in such a limbo.
>>
>> What Johnny has written is 100% correct.
>>
>
> VSI doesn't have any right to issue any licenses to *any* VMS/OpenVMS
> version, no matter the platform/architecture, if it isn't a version
> issued by VSI. Such as any Alpha or IA64 version that was issued
> from HP/HPE (or earlier).
>
> It has to be a VAX kit built by VSI, and that (as has already been
> said) will simply not happen.
>
> That VSI should take the work to build an VAX kit just to satisfy
> a few hobbyists, is ridiculous...
>
>
There's more than a few VAX hobbyists. And an intern or one of those
hobbyists could put together a no-warranty lightly tested hobbyist grade
release of VMS (VMS 7.3H?) and generate a lot of good will for a company
that could stand to have more of it, instead of enmity from all of those
aforementioned hobbyists. VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any
version/architecture of VMS, in front of as many people with as little
effort to the end user as possible now. Sounds like a low effort low
cost win to me.

--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.gleason@comcast.net

Lee Gleason wrote:

> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS, in
> front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible now.

And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?

On 7/31/2022 5:02 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Lee Gleason wrote:
>
>> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of
>> VMS, in front of as many people with as little effort to the end user
>> as possible now.
>
> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?

It's a good start. But VAX/VMS could get even more exposure at a
trivial cost - instead of the perception "VSI - oh yeah, the company
that killed VAX/VMS. Well, let's load the latest Linux Live CD instead."

Heck, doesn't matter to me. I have no interest in non-VAX/VMS, or
anything that runs on a hypervisor, and my VAX hobby work these days is
all on the bare metal anyway - no need for an OS.

--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.gleason@comcast.net

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 10:02:58 AM UTC+12, Andy Burns wrote:
> Lee Gleason wrote:
>
> > VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS, in
> > front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible now.
> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?

Different audience.

VMS on x86-64 is interesting to people who are already know about and are interested
in OpenVMS.

VMS on VAX is interesting to people who like vintage computers and at that particular
point in time may have no other interest in or knowledge of VMS beyond "its what the
VAX was built to run". OpenVMS VAX would be the foot in the door - you've tried the
classic VAX version, why not give the latest and greatest x86-64 version a go with
all these new features?

On 7/31/2022 6:25 PM, David Goodwin wrote:

> VMS on VAX is interesting to people who like vintage computers and at that particular
> point in time may have no other interest in or knowledge of VMS beyond "its what the
> VAX was built to run". OpenVMS VAX would be the foot in the door - you've tried the
> classic VAX version, why not give the latest and greatest x86-64 version a go with
> all these new features?

Regardless, at this point, no good purpose is served by alienating
any segment of the computing population.

--
Lee L. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.gleason@comcast.net

On 2022-07-31 16:25, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 10:02:58 AM UTC+12, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Lee Gleason wrote:
>>
>>> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS, in
>>> front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible now.
>> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?
>
> Different audience.
>
> VMS on x86-64 is interesting to people who are already know about and are interested
> in OpenVMS.
>
> VMS on VAX is interesting to people who like vintage computers and at that particular
> point in time may have no other interest in or knowledge of VMS beyond "its what the
> VAX was built to run". OpenVMS VAX would be the foot in the door - you've tried the
> classic VAX version, why not give the latest and greatest x86-64 version a go with
> all these new features?

I have old VAX hardware (VAXstation 4000 vlc) that I wanted to keep running
legacy OpenVMS 7.4 on. I can't legally do that any more.

I don't care about VMS on X86. Not interesting. If I want to run VMS on my PC I
would do it using SIMH VAX. It is more than fast enough. And it is real VAX VMS.

IMHO VSI and HPE have finally found the solution to kill VMS, esp VAX/VMS, entirely.

So sad. On exit HPE could have distributed in perpetuity VMS licenses, but they
did not. They gave us a year. That year is done.

RIP VAX/VMS

On 7/31/2022 5:30 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-07-31 kl. 23:22, skrev Robert A. Brooks:
>> On 7/29/2022 3:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2022-07-29 20:04, abrsvc wrote:
>>
>>>> From what I recall, VSI bought the rights to Alpha and Itanium along with
>>>> the rights to create the X86 variants. VSI does not have the rights to do
>>>> anything with VAX versions at all. HP retains the rights to allow/disallow
>>>> any licensing for VAX machines or emulated VAXes. All licensing for these
>>>> are handled through HP Financial. This includes both the purchase of
>>>> licenses as well as transfers.
>>>
>>> That was the belief of a lot of people, but VSI (or people from VSI) publicly
>>> corrected that belief in this newsgroup some time ago. They do have the
>>> rights also to the VAX bits. But there isn't even a snowballs chance in hell
>>> that they will build a new VAX version, it has been said.
>>> And VSI cannot issue any licenses for HPE versions of VMS, which is why the
>>> VAX is in such a limbo.
>>
>> What Johnny has written is 100% correct.
>>
>
> VSI doesn't have any right to issue any licenses to *any* VMS/OpenVMS
> version, no matter the platform/architecture, if it isn't a version
> issued by VSI. Such as any Alpha or IA64 version that was issued
> from HP/HPE (or earlier).
>
> It has to be a VAX kit built by VSI, and that (as has already been
> said) will simply not happen.
>
> That VSI should take the work to build an VAX kit just to satisfy
> a few hobbyists, is ridiculous...
>
>

100% correct ...

But, to play devil's advocate, I'm wondering just what size dollar bill such a
request could be written on to get a new VAX release ...

:-)

--
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 7/31/2022 7:07 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
> On 7/31/2022 5:02 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Lee Gleason wrote:
>>
>>> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS,
>>> in front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible
>>> now.
>>
>> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?
>
> It's a good start. But VAX/VMS could get even more exposure at a trivial
> cost

That is just plain false. The cost would not be trivial.

VSI is working hard on the x86 release, which still doesn't have most of the
native compilers. Lots of other work there also. They do not have time to do
non-essential stuff. At least not now.

--
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 Monday, August 1, 2022 at 1:46:41 PM UTC+12, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/31/2022 5:30 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> > Den 2022-07-31 kl. 23:22, skrev Robert A. Brooks:
> >> On 7/29/2022 3:47 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>> On 2022-07-29 20:04, abrsvc wrote:
> >>
> >>>> From what I recall, VSI bought the rights to Alpha and Itanium along with
> >>>> the rights to create the X86 variants. VSI does not have the rights to do
> >>>> anything with VAX versions at all. HP retains the rights to allow/disallow
> >>>> any licensing for VAX machines or emulated VAXes. All licensing for these
> >>>> are handled through HP Financial. This includes both the purchase of
> >>>> licenses as well as transfers.
> >>>
> >>> That was the belief of a lot of people, but VSI (or people from VSI) publicly
> >>> corrected that belief in this newsgroup some time ago. They do have the
> >>> rights also to the VAX bits. But there isn't even a snowballs chance in hell
> >>> that they will build a new VAX version, it has been said.
> >>> And VSI cannot issue any licenses for HPE versions of VMS, which is why the
> >>> VAX is in such a limbo.
> >>
> >> What Johnny has written is 100% correct.
> >>
> >
> > VSI doesn't have any right to issue any licenses to *any* VMS/OpenVMS
> > version, no matter the platform/architecture, if it isn't a version
> > issued by VSI. Such as any Alpha or IA64 version that was issued
> > from HP/HPE (or earlier).
> >
> > It has to be a VAX kit built by VSI, and that (as has already been
> > said) will simply not happen.
> >
> > That VSI should take the work to build an VAX kit just to satisfy
> > a few hobbyists, is ridiculous...
> >
> >
> 100% correct ...
>
> But, to play devil's advocate, I'm wondering just what size dollar bill such a
> request could be written on to get a new VAX release ...

IIRC there is at least one kernel engineer at VSI with a large collection of
VAXen - I wonder if they're all running NetBSD now that the hobbyist program
is gone.

Perhaps it could be done as a strictly volunteer effort. Replace the Compaq
branding with VSI if its strictly necessary (is the Compaq trademark even still
alive? all the DEC ones have expired), run the build process and put it out
there with minimal testing (boots on some vax or even SIMH - good enough)
for strictly non-commercial/hobbyist purposes only. It need not cost VSI a
cent or a single hour of development time as long as someone within VSI
was interested in taking it on in their spare time.

On 2022-07-31, Don North <idontwant@spam.com> wrote:
>
> I don't care about VMS on X86. Not interesting. If I want to run VMS on my PC I
> would do it using SIMH VAX. It is more than fast enough. And it is real VAX VMS.
>

That is a _very_ self-centered attitude, which completely ignores why
VMS on x86-64 exists.

There isn't a market for what you want to do. There is a potential market
for what VSI are trying to do, which is bring VMS to x86-64.

When people need to learn VMS for the first time, they need to learn to
use it on the architectures and tools they will be using in their job.

Simon.

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

On 2022-07-31, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 7/31/2022 7:07 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>> On 7/31/2022 5:02 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>
>>>> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS,
>>>> in front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?
>>
>> It's a good start. But VAX/VMS could get even more exposure at a trivial
>> cost
>
> That is just plain false. The cost would not be trivial.
>
> VSI is working hard on the x86 release, which still doesn't have most of the
> native compilers. Lots of other work there also. They do not have time to do
> non-essential stuff. At least not now.
>

Oh bloody hell. :-(

We are heading for that mysterious ground again where David and I actually
agree on something. :-)

Simon.

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

On 8/1/22 08:11, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-07-31, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 7/31/2022 7:07 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2022 5:02 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS,
>>>>> in front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible
>>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?
>>>
>>> It's a good start. But VAX/VMS could get even more exposure at a trivial
>>> cost
>>
>> That is just plain false. The cost would not be trivial.
>>
>> VSI is working hard on the x86 release, which still doesn't have most of the
>> native compilers. Lots of other work there also. They do not have time to do
>> non-essential stuff. At least not now.
>>
>
> Oh bloody hell. :-(
>
> We are heading for that mysterious ground again where David and I actually
> agree on something. :-)
>

I really don't want to jump into this again, but.....

The potential to do this with a trivial cost definitely exists.
There were (maybe still are) people who are willing to do the
grunt work without involving people at VSI who have other jobs
to do. Other than using an emulator, hardware exists, at least
in a number of museums (I gave away three rather large VAX to
people people setting up or operating museums. No, I don't
remember who or where.) If there is fear of a legal issue having
the work done by a third party, issue a contract for the nominal
cost of $1.00 to the person who would head up the team to do
the port and include in the contract the understanding that it
is a work for hire and all IP remains the property of VSI.

It can be done.

bill

On 7/31/22 6:25 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 10:02:58 AM UTC+12, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Lee Gleason wrote:
>>
>>> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS, in
>>> front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible now.
>> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?
>
> Different audience.
>
> VMS on x86-64 is interesting to people who are already know about and are interested
> in OpenVMS.

Or in operating systems that run on hardware they already have.

> VMS on VAX is interesting to people who like vintage computers

among which there are very few potential users and zero potential
customers. VSI is kinda busy keeping VMS going for people who are still
using it to do real work. Allowing folks to gain experience via the
hobbyist program on a current version that they'd be using in the real
world makes sense. Spending scarce resources on VAX/VMS doesn't.

> and at that particular
> point in time may have no other interest in or knowledge of VMS beyond "its what the
> VAX was built to run". OpenVMS VAX would be the foot in the door - you've tried the
> classic VAX version, why not give the latest and greatest x86-64 version a go with
> all these new features?

It would be more the reverse. Anyone who tries VAX/VMS first would be
so disappointed by the limitations (can't even compile most current
software on it) that their suspicions that it's a last-century operating
system that died a natural death a long time ago would be confirmed.

On 7/31/2022 5:46 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>   There's more than a few VAX hobbyists. And an intern or one of those
> hobbyists could put together a no-warranty lightly tested hobbyist grade
> release of VMS (VMS 7.3H?) and generate a lot of good will for a company
> that could stand to have more of it, instead of enmity from all of those
> aforementioned hobbyists. VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any
> version/architecture of VMS, in front of as many people with as little
> effort to the end user as possible now. Sounds like a low effort low
> cost win to me.

We know that there are some VMS VAX hobbyists.

And I am sure they would be very happy if VSI did a VSI VMS VAX release
with a VSI commu7nity license.

But VSI is a business.

They key question is: how many more commercial licenses would VSI
sell if they did that?

My guess: zero.

Decisions to buy or not buy a commercial VMS x86-64 license is not
determined by whether VMS VAX hobbyists are happy or not.

Arne

On 7/31/2022 9:16 PM, Don North wrote:
> I have old VAX hardware (VAXstation 4000 vlc) that I wanted to keep
> running legacy OpenVMS 7.4 on. I can't legally do that any more.
>
> I don't care about VMS on X86. Not interesting. If I want to run VMS on
> my PC I would do it using SIMH VAX. It is more than fast enough. And it
> is real VAX VMS.
>
> IMHO VSI and HPE have finally found the solution to kill VMS, esp
> VAX/VMS, entirely.
>
> So sad. On exit HPE could have distributed in perpetuity VMS licenses,
> but they did not. They gave us a year. That year is done.
>
> RIP VAX/VMS

Just realize that there is no business case for VSI to create
a VSI VMS VAX release.

HPE could have issued indefinite or 50 years VMS VAX hobbyists
licenses.

In fact I think that would have been a nice touch.

But they did not. A sad fact is still a fact.

Arne

On 8/1/2022 8:30 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/1/22 08:11, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-07-31, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2022 7:07 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>>     It's a good start. But  VAX/VMS could get even more exposure at
>>>> a trivial
>>>> cost
>>>
>>> That is just plain false.  The cost would not be trivial.
>>>
>>> VSI is working hard on the x86 release, which still doesn't have most
>>> of the
>>> native compilers.  Lots of other work there also.  They do not have
>>> time to do
>>> non-essential stuff.  At least not now.
>>
>> Oh bloody hell. :-(
>>
>> We are heading for that mysterious ground again where David and I
>> actually
>> agree on something. :-)
>
> I really don't want to jump into this again, but.....
>
> The potential to do this with a trivial cost definitely exists.
> There were (maybe still are) people who are willing to do the
> grunt work without involving people at VSI who have other jobs
> to do.  Other than using an emulator, hardware exists, at least
> in a number of museums (I gave away three rather large VAX to
> people people setting up or operating museums.  No, I don't
> remember who or where.)  If there is fear of a legal issue having
> the work done by a third party, issue a contract for the nominal
> cost of $1.00 to the person who would head up the team to do
> the port and include in the contract the understanding that it
> is a work for hire and all IP remains the property of VSI.
>
> It can be done.

Lots of things can be done.

But I am skeptical about the trivial cost.

Handover of the source code and build environment. Legal
work with confidentiality agreement etc.. Evaluation
of potential liability and mitigation of such risk.

It would be a distraction from VSI real business.

Arne

On 8/1/2022 8:11 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-07-31, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 7/31/2022 7:07 PM, Lee Gleason wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2022 5:02 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> Lee Gleason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> VSI should be doing all it can to get VMS, any version/architecture of VMS,
>>>>> in front of as many people with as little effort to the end user as possible
>>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> And using x86-64 hardware with familiar hypervisors isn't that?
>>>
>>> It's a good start. But VAX/VMS could get even more exposure at a trivial
>>> cost
>>
>> That is just plain false. The cost would not be trivial.
>>
>> VSI is working hard on the x86 release, which still doesn't have most of the
>> native compilers. Lots of other work there also. They do not have time to do
>> non-essential stuff. At least not now.
>>
>
> Oh bloody hell. :-(
>
> We are heading for that mysterious ground again where David and I actually
> agree on something. :-)
>
> Simon.
>

Well, even a blind dog finds a bone, sooner or later ...

You can't be wrong ALL the time, just usually ...

--
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 2022-08-01, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> Well, even a blind dog finds a bone, sooner or later ...
>
> You can't be wrong ALL the time, just usually ...
>

You are just in a state of denial David... :-)

BTW, you really are a cheerful person to talk to at times. :-)

On a more serious note, when the x86-64 hobbyist licence becomes available,
I wonder if that will finally kill the demands for VAX hobbyist licences ?

I do understand that some people have their own bits of physical VAX
hardware they want to continue using, but VSI isn't in business to
tend to their needs, but to the needs to customers willing to pay for
x86-64 (and Alpha) licences.

VSI are overloaded as-is (for example, I wonder if you really will be
getting your hands on a BASIC compiler this side of Christmas) and I
suspect there's as much legal and infrastructure stuff as there is
technical stuff involved in a VMS build on VAX.

Simon.

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

On 8/1/2022 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On a more serious note, when the x86-64 hobbyist licence becomes available,
> I wonder if that will finally kill the demands for VAX hobbyist licences ?

Not likely.

It may kill the demand for Alpha and Itanium hobbyist licenses, but not
VAX.

Those that want to run VAX are doing it for nostalgic reasons not
to run something fast/current.

Itanium was until very recently current and Alpha was popular because
Itanium was so difficult to get.

> I do understand that some people have their own bits of physical VAX
> hardware they want to continue using, but VSI isn't in business to
> tend to their needs, but to the needs to customers willing to pay for
> x86-64 (and Alpha) licences.

Business is different from hobbyist.

Businesses will move to the latest that the SW stack they use
can run on (or move off VMS).

Arne

On 8/1/22 14:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/1/2022 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On a more serious note, when the x86-64 hobbyist licence becomes
>> available,
>> I wonder if that will finally kill the demands for VAX hobbyist
>> licences ?
>
> Not likely.
>
> It may kill the demand for Alpha and Itanium hobbyist licenses, but not
> VAX.
>
> Those that want to run VAX are doing it for nostalgic reasons not
> to run something fast/current.
>
> Itanium was until very recently current and Alpha was popular because
> Itanium was so difficult to get.
>
>> I do understand that some people have their own bits of physical VAX
>> hardware they want to continue using, but VSI isn't in business to
>> tend to their needs, but to the needs to customers willing to pay for
>> x86-64 (and Alpha) licences.
>
> Business is different from hobbyist.
>
> Businesses will move to the latest that the SW stack they use
> can run on (or move off VMS).

Considering that until recently we used to see posts here all
the time from people claiming to be running VAX in production
that may not actually be accurate. :-)

(It's been a long time, but I even remember once seeing someone
claim they were still running VMS 5.5 on a VAX in production.
Something about not being able to move because of the application.)

bill

On 8/1/2022 2:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/1/22 14:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Business is different from hobbyist.
>>
>> Businesses will move to the latest that the SW stack they use
>> can run on (or move off VMS).
>
> Considering that until recently we used to see posts here all
> the time from people claiming to be running VAX in production
> that may not actually be accurate.  :-)
>
> (It's been a long time, but I even remember once seeing someone
> claim they were still running VMS 5.5 on a VAX in production.
> Something about not being able to move because of the application.)

I don't see any conflict.

"the latest that the SW stack they use can run on" <> "the latest"

They may depend on certain compilers/libraries/tools not available
on Alpha/Itanium.

They may depend on certain HW and associated drivers not available
on Alpha/Itanium.

If everything they need are available on Alpha/Itanium, then
I think that almost all would have moved.

Arne

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 2:42:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/1/22 14:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 8/1/2022 2:02 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >> On a more serious note, when the x86-64 hobbyist licence becomes
> >> available,
> >> I wonder if that will finally kill the demands for VAX hobbyist
> >> licences ?
> >
> > Not likely.
> >
> > It may kill the demand for Alpha and Itanium hobbyist licenses, but not
> > VAX.
> >
> > Those that want to run VAX are doing it for nostalgic reasons not
> > to run something fast/current.
> >
> > Itanium was until very recently current and Alpha was popular because
> > Itanium was so difficult to get.
> >
> >> I do understand that some people have their own bits of physical VAX
> >> hardware they want to continue using, but VSI isn't in business to
> >> tend to their needs, but to the needs to customers willing to pay for
> >> x86-64 (and Alpha) licences.
> >
> > Business is different from hobbyist.
> >
> > Businesses will move to the latest that the SW stack they use
> > can run on (or move off VMS).
> Considering that until recently we used to see posts here all
> the time from people claiming to be running VAX in production
> that may not actually be accurate. :-)
>
> (It's been a long time, but I even remember once seeing someone
> claim they were still running VMS 5.5 on a VAX in production.
> Something about not being able to move because of the application.)
>
> bill
I can verify that there are people running V5.5-2 in production even today. Most are cases where the application just works and there are no reasons for an upgrade. There are many sites running V6.2 for the same reason. No need to upgrade to V7.3 as the application works just fine.

I recall one customer many years ago that was running on a VAX 11/780 even into the late 1980s running a V2 variant of VAX/VMS. Paid real money for service, but the dang thing just wouldn't break. We finally convinced him to move to a microvax of some sort. The decrease in field service costs paid for the machine many times over.
Last I heard, this customer was still running the microvax system, I think at V5.x. That was a decade ago though.

In article <tc1d87$tnl$1@news.misty.com>,
Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
>On 2022-07-26 13:32, Dan Cross wrote:
>> But again, why should VSI care? They have nothing to do
>> with VAX. If people started doing this for Alpha, Itanium
>> or x86, I could see it since VSI has interest in those
>> platforms. But VAX is explicitly out of their domain.
>
>I should point out that VSI have nothing to do with VAX out of choice.
>They could technically make a VAX release if they wanted to. They do
>have the rights, and the code.

A fair point, but regardless, they have chosen not to care.

It boggles my mind that people think that an organization that
has explicitly declined to work with the VAX (for the very valid
reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread) would care if a few
hobbyists run an OS, 20 years out of maintenance, they can't
issue licenses for anyway.

Maybe those people have the inside track with someone at at VSI
who has told them that this is as big a deal as they are making
it out to be, but I find that doubtful.

- Dan C.

In article <tc0ljh$3gipc$3@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2022-07-28, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> An entity that provides a hobbyist program does not do so without reasons.
>> Those reasons would include benefits to the entity. In the case of VMS, the
>> more people that know of VMS is usually a good thing for VSI.
>
>What if some of those "more people" are professional security researchers
>who have read VSI's marketing material ? :-)

If they responsibly disclose whatever vulnerabilities that they
may discover to VSI so that they can be patched, then that seems
like a win.

- Dan C.