VAX/VMS is no longer VMS. VMS has developed greatly since those days.

Suggesting that people learn VMS by sticking them in front of a VAX/VMS
machine makes about as much sense as telling people to learn Windows by
sticking them in front of a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 machine.

VAX/VMS is so limited compared to later versions of VMS (even Alpha)
that it is extremely counter productive to tell people to learn VMS by
making VAX/VMS their first exposure to VMS, especially when a hobbyist
version of Alpha VMS is freely available to use.

The only reason you would stick someone in front of a Windows 2000 machine
these days is to show them how to design a proper GUI that is functional,
productive, and easy to follow. VAX/VMS doesn't even have that going for it.

Oh, and neither HPE or VSI killed VAX/VMS. The changing nature of technology
did that.

Simon.

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

On 7/31/2022 8:31 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> VAX/VMS is no longer VMS. VMS has developed greatly since those days.

Simon says ...

> Suggesting that people learn VMS by sticking them in front of a VAX/VMS
> machine makes about as much sense as telling people to learn Windows by
> sticking them in front of a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 machine.

To learn how to use the WEENDOZE GUI, either one would work. DCL on a VAX is
rather similar to DCL on x86 VMS.

> VAX/VMS is so limited compared to later versions of VMS (even Alpha)
> that it is extremely counter productive to tell people to learn VMS by
> making VAX/VMS their first exposure to VMS, especially when a hobbyist
> version of Alpha VMS is freely available to use.

The recent topic was a person with a MicroVAX 3100 Model 40 who wanted to
resurrect it. Not something I'd do, but we're not talking about me.

Also mentioned was a MicroVAX 2000, which I'm glad I do not have one.

Are you having fun telling them they cannot pursue their hobby?

And another example. Basic is still 32 bit, and, Basic on a VAX has more
capabilities than on newer systems. There is the "immediate mode" that acts
like an interpreter. Only on VAX. Also totally adequate for someone to learn
how to use VAX Basic, knowledge usable on the latest VMS systems.

> The only reason you would stick someone in front of a Windows 2000 machine
> these days is to show them how to design a proper GUI that is functional,
> productive, and easy to follow. VAX/VMS doesn't even have that going for it.

See above concerning VAX Basic ...

> Oh, and neither HPE or VSI killed VAX/VMS. The changing nature of technology
> did that.

VAX maybe, but not VMS ...

--
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 12:31:15 PM UTC+12, Simon Clubley wrote:
> VAX/VMS is no longer VMS. VMS has developed greatly since those days.
>
> Suggesting that people learn VMS by sticking them in front of a VAX/VMS
> machine makes about as much sense as telling people to learn Windows by
> sticking them in front of a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 machine.
>
> VAX/VMS is so limited compared to later versions of VMS (even Alpha)
> that it is extremely counter productive to tell people to learn VMS by
> making VAX/VMS their first exposure to VMS, especially when a hobbyist
> version of Alpha VMS is freely available to use.

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion.

Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly applicable
to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command line is
almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows 2000,
not an entirely different operating system.

From what I've seen of OpenVMS VAX 7.3 (or even 5.5) and OpenVMS Alpha 8.3
the same applies. I'm sure there are significant improvements in 8.3 just like there
are in Windows 10 but as a user OpenVMS VAX 5.5 they look more similar than they
do different and my ability to navigate around the system, edit files, etc, seemed
to transfer just fine to 8.3.

Additionally, doesn't VSI OpenVMS Alpha require at least an EV6 processor? At
least that's what the list of supported AlphaServers implies. My only EV6 is
a faulty DS20 and I don't like my chances of getting my hands on anything smaller
or less faulty. Small VAXen always seemed to be easier to get my hands on than
small Alphas.

Den 2022-08-01 kl. 03:48, skrev David Goodwin:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 12:31:15 PM UTC+12, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> VAX/VMS is no longer VMS. VMS has developed greatly since those days.
>>
>> Suggesting that people learn VMS by sticking them in front of a VAX/VMS
>> machine makes about as much sense as telling people to learn Windows by
>> sticking them in front of a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 machine.
>>
>> VAX/VMS is so limited compared to later versions of VMS (even Alpha)
>> that it is extremely counter productive to tell people to learn VMS by
>> making VAX/VMS their first exposure to VMS, especially when a hobbyist
>> version of Alpha VMS is freely available to use.
>
> I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion.
>
> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly applicable
> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command line is
> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows 2000,
> not an entirely different operating system.
>
> From what I've seen of OpenVMS VAX 7.3 (or even 5.5) and OpenVMS Alpha 8.3
> the same applies. I'm sure there are significant improvements in 8.3 just like there
> are in Windows 10 but as a user OpenVMS VAX 5.5 they look more similar than they
> do different and my ability to navigate around the system, edit files, etc, seemed
> to transfer just fine to 8.3.
>
> Additionally, doesn't VSI OpenVMS Alpha require at least an EV6 processor?

8.4-2L2 is for newer EV6 or later Alphas.
8.4-2L1 runs on "lower" Alphas.

If I'm not totally wrong...

On 2022-07-31, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly applicable
> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command line is
> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows 2000,
> not an entirely different operating system.
>

Where are the modern applications and tools that will run on Windows 2000 ?

Simon.

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

Den 2022-08-01 kl. 14:14, skrev Simon Clubley:
> On 2022-07-31, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly applicable
>> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
>> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command line is
>> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows 2000,
>> not an entirely different operating system.
>>
>
> Where are the modern applications and tools that will run on Windows 2000 ?
>
> Simon.
>

Where are the modern applications and tools that run on OpenVMS V8.4-2L3?

I do not think that you should jump to applications, now that someone
showed that Win2000 and todays Windows are not *that* different...

Den 2022-08-01 kl. 14:19, skrev Jan-Erik Söderholm:
> Den 2022-08-01 kl. 14:14, skrev Simon Clubley:
>> On 2022-07-31, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly
>>> applicable
>>> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
>>> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command
>>> line is
>>> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows
>>> 2000,
>>> not an entirely different operating system.
>>>
>>
>> Where are the modern applications and tools that will run on Windows 2000 ?
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Where are the modern applications and tools that run on OpenVMS V8.4-2L3?
>
> I do not think that you should jump to applications, now that someone
> showed that Win2000 and todays Windows are not *that* different...
>

After all, I do not think that someone that want to run VMS 5.x on
some VAX is primarily looking for those "modern applications and
tools" that are available for *that* platform.

On 2022-08-01, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
> Den 2022-08-01 kl. 14:14, skrev Simon Clubley:
>> On 2022-07-31, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly applicable
>>> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
>>> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command line is
>>> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows 2000,
>>> not an entirely different operating system.
>>>
>>
>> Where are the modern applications and tools that will run on Windows 2000 ?
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Where are the modern applications and tools that run on OpenVMS V8.4-2L3?
>

Far fewer than there should be, which is why VSI is investing so much
resources in making x86-64 VMS easier to port to.

> I do not think that you should jump to applications, now that someone
> showed that Win2000 and todays Windows are not *that* different...
>

They sort-of look the same on the screen (horrible modern UI standards
not withstanding). Underneath, they are very different and old Windows
versions have far limited functionality than modern versions.

Oh, and applications are the whole point of this. You don't buy an
operating system to run by itself. You buy an operating system to
run the applications your organisation needs.

And those applications need support from the operating system to be
able to run in today's interconnected environment.

Simon.

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

On 2022-08-01, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>
> After all, I do not think that someone that want to run VMS 5.x on
> some VAX is primarily looking for those "modern applications and
> tools" that are available for *that* platform.
>

There's not enough of those people to make that a viable business case
for VSI to expend resources on.

Simon.

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

Den 2022-08-01 kl. 15:02, skrev Simon Clubley:
> On 2022-08-01, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>
>> After all, I do not think that someone that want to run VMS 5.x on
>> some VAX is primarily looking for those "modern applications and
>> tools" that are available for *that* platform.
>>
>
> There's not enough of those people to make that a viable business case
> for VSI to expend resources on.
>
> Simon.
>

Of course not! VAX is a museum/hoppyist thing.
Nothing that VSI should spend resources on.

I was just reacting on your earlier rather dumb comments.
And now enought of the thread history has gone with
your cut-outs, so this make no sense any more. :-)

On 8/1/2022 5:48 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-08-01 kl. 03:48, skrev David Goodwin:

>> Additionally, doesn't VSI OpenVMS Alpha require at least an EV6 processor?
>
> 8.4-2L2 is for newer EV6 or later Alphas.
> 8.4-2L1 runs on "lower" Alphas.
>
> If I'm not totally wrong...

What Jan-Erik has written is 100% correct.

--

--- Rob

On 7/31/2022 9:48 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 12:31:15 PM UTC+12, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> VAX/VMS is no longer VMS. VMS has developed greatly since those days.
>>
>> Suggesting that people learn VMS by sticking them in front of a VAX/VMS
>> machine makes about as much sense as telling people to learn Windows by
>> sticking them in front of a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 machine.
>>
>> VAX/VMS is so limited compared to later versions of VMS (even Alpha)
>> that it is extremely counter productive to tell people to learn VMS by
>> making VAX/VMS their first exposure to VMS, especially when a hobbyist
>> version of Alpha VMS is freely available to use.
>
> I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion.
>
> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly applicable
> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command line is
> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows 2000,
> not an entirely different operating system.

Not really.

Most of the stuff done on Windows 2000 would be obsolete on modern Windows.

The 1990's API's are still there - Win32 API, MFC, COM, ATL and all that
stuff.

But new desktop development should be done in .NET and the funky WinRT
thing.

ASP/IIS and ASP.NET Core/Kestrel have nothing in common.

VS 6 and VS 2022 share the name, but are totally different. Heck - there
is even not much overlap related to supported programming languages.

None of the modern client apps would run on 2000.

None of the modern server apps would run on 2000.

Security and management of users has changed, so also different for sys adm.

Arne

On 8/1/2022 9:01 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-08-01, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>> Den 2022-08-01 kl. 14:14, skrev Simon Clubley:
>>> On 2022-07-31, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is certainly applicable
>>>> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the development tools
>>>> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the command line is
>>>> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over windows 2000,
>>>> not an entirely different operating system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where are the modern applications and tools that will run on Windows 2000 ?
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>> Where are the modern applications and tools that run on OpenVMS V8.4-2L3?
>>
>
> Far fewer than there should be, which is why VSI is investing so much
> resources in making x86-64 VMS easier to port to.
>
>> I do not think that you should jump to applications, now that someone
>> showed that Win2000 and todays Windows are not *that* different...
>>
>
> They sort-of look the same on the screen (horrible modern UI standards
> not withstanding). Underneath, they are very different and old Windows
> versions have far limited functionality than modern versions.
>
> Oh, and applications are the whole point of this. You don't buy an
> operating system to run by itself. You buy an operating system to
> run the applications your organisation needs.
>
> And those applications need support from the operating system to be
> able to run in today's interconnected environment.
>
> Simon.
>

Simon seems to have difficulty differentiating between vintage private hobby
usage and commercial usage ...

--
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

Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
>Simon seems to have difficulty differentiating between vintage private hobby
>usage and commercial usage ...

There is actual funding for commercial usage and companies understand it.
There is no funding for vintage private hobby usage and explaining to lawyers
why people would want to use a vax but how there is no actual money in it
is difficult and they will regard it as a waste of their time.

The people who run HPE are not engineers, they are not programmers. They do
not understand computers, they only understand money. When money is not
involved they get very confused.

There was a time when HP was a company run by engineers but this is no longer
the case and it has not been for some time.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 8/1/2022 11:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The people who run HPE are not engineers, they are not programmers. They do
> not understand computers, they only understand money. When money is not
> involved they get very confused.
>
> There was a time when HP was a company run by engineers but this is no longer
> the case and it has not been for some time.

Lewis Platt -> Carly Fiorina 1999 ??

Arne

On 8/1/22 10:15, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/1/2022 9:01 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-08-01, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>> Den 2022-08-01 kl. 14:14, skrev Simon Clubley:
>>>> On 2022-07-31, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is
>>>>> certainly applicable
>>>>> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the
>>>>> development tools
>>>>> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the
>>>>> command line is
>>>>> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over
>>>>> windows 2000,
>>>>> not an entirely different operating system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where are the modern applications and tools that will run on Windows
>>>> 2000 ?
>>>>
>>>> Simon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where are the modern applications and tools that run on OpenVMS
>>> V8.4-2L3?
>>>
>>
>> Far fewer than there should be, which is why VSI is investing so much
>> resources in making x86-64 VMS easier to port to.
>>
>>> I do not think that you should jump to applications, now that someone
>>> showed that Win2000 and todays Windows are not *that* different...
>>>
>>
>> They sort-of look the same on the screen (horrible modern UI standards
>> not withstanding). Underneath, they are very different and old Windows
>> versions have far limited functionality than modern versions.
>>
>> Oh, and applications are the whole point of this. You don't buy an
>> operating system to run by itself. You buy an operating system to
>> run the applications your organisation needs.
>>
>> And those applications need support from the operating system to be
>> able to run in today's interconnected environment.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Simon seems to have difficulty differentiating between vintage private
> hobby usage and commercial usage ...
>

As an interesting side note....

What happened to all those VAX we heard about as recently as
last year that were running production floors or being used
by government sites where things like certification prevent
moving to a more modern platform?

I know they probably had/have non-expiring licenses but the
consensus now seems to be that the only VAX users are hobbyists.
Did all those production VAX just vanish overnight?

bill

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 12:17:35 PM UTC-4, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/1/22 10:15, Dave Froble wrote:
> > On 8/1/2022 9:01 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >> On 2022-08-01, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
> >>> Den 2022-08-01 kl. 14:14, skrev Simon Clubley:
> >>>> On 2022-07-31, David Goodwin <dgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anything you learn using or developing for Windows 2000 is
> >>>>> certainly applicable
> >>>>> to current windows. The Win32 API is mostly the same, the
> >>>>> development tools
> >>>>> haven't changed a whole lot, the UI is still pretty similar, the
> >>>>> command line is
> >>>>> almost identical. Windows 10 is an incremental improvement over
> >>>>> windows 2000,
> >>>>> not an entirely different operating system.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Where are the modern applications and tools that will run on Windows
> >>>> 2000 ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Simon.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Where are the modern applications and tools that run on OpenVMS
> >>> V8.4-2L3?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Far fewer than there should be, which is why VSI is investing so much
> >> resources in making x86-64 VMS easier to port to.
> >>
> >>> I do not think that you should jump to applications, now that someone
> >>> showed that Win2000 and todays Windows are not *that* different...
> >>>
> >>
> >> They sort-of look the same on the screen (horrible modern UI standards
> >> not withstanding). Underneath, they are very different and old Windows
> >> versions have far limited functionality than modern versions.
> >>
> >> Oh, and applications are the whole point of this. You don't buy an
> >> operating system to run by itself. You buy an operating system to
> >> run the applications your organisation needs.
> >>
> >> And those applications need support from the operating system to be
> >> able to run in today's interconnected environment.
> >>
> >> Simon.
> >>
> >
> > Simon seems to have difficulty differentiating between vintage private
> > hobby usage and commercial usage ...
> >
> As an interesting side note....
>
> What happened to all those VAX we heard about as recently as
> last year that were running production floors or being used
> by government sites where things like certification prevent
> moving to a more modern platform?
>
> I know they probably had/have non-expiring licenses but the
> consensus now seems to be that the only VAX users are hobbyists.
> Did all those production VAX just vanish overnight?
>
> bill
Many are now running using emulators. I know of many that moved within the last year with more moves scheduled for the next year. All had (or will have) their licenses transferred via contact with HP Financial. VAX systems are still going (with real hardware too!!). I am aware of many still at V5.5-2, many at V6.2 and V7.3.

Dan

On 2022-08-01, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What happened to all those VAX we heard about as recently as
> last year that were running production floors or being used
> by government sites where things like certification prevent
> moving to a more modern platform?
>
> I know they probably had/have non-expiring licenses but the
> consensus now seems to be that the only VAX users are hobbyists.
> Did all those production VAX just vanish overnight?
>

In addition to Dan's comments, I suspect that when the VAX systems
(either emulated or physical) are finally retired, the replacement
systems for most of them will not be VMS based.

Simon.

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

On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 10:15:30 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:

> Simon seems to have difficulty differentiating between vintage private
> hobby usage and commercial usage ...

It doesn't suit tha axe he is grinding.

On 8/1/2022 1:46 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-08-01, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What happened to all those VAX we heard about as recently as
>> last year that were running production floors or being used
>> by government sites where things like certification prevent
>> moving to a more modern platform?
>>
>> I know they probably had/have non-expiring licenses but the
>> consensus now seems to be that the only VAX users are hobbyists.
>> Did all those production VAX just vanish overnight?
>>
>
> In addition to Dan's comments, I suspect that when the VAX systems
> (either emulated or physical) are finally retired, the replacement
> systems for most of them will not be VMS based.
>
> Simon.
>

Well, let's take a look ...

Case 1:

The entire system, not just computers, will be totally replaced or discarded.
If replacing, then whatever solution works best, if such exist, might be chosen.
Or perhaps a clean sheet solution will be designed and implemented.

Case 2:
The same needs exist, and an update for capabilities and/or hardware will be
desired. If VMS still runs the existing applications best, then one would
expect that VMS would be seriously considered. Anything else might cost more.

Case 3:

Some WEENDOZE or Linux bigot is involved and declares the new system must
correspond to the alleged bigotry.

Case 1 is blowing lots of money, it happens all the time.
Case 2 is reasonable.
Case 3 isn't reasonable, but happens all the time.

So perhaps Simon's assertion may be (once again) wrong.

:-)

--
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 8/1/2022 1:59 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2022 10:15:30 -0400, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>> Simon seems to have difficulty differentiating between vintage private
>> hobby usage and commercial usage ...
>
> It doesn't suit tha axe he is grinding.
>

Can't be. He's grinded so much, the axe is totally gone.

--
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

=?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 8/1/2022 11:09 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The people who run HPE are not engineers, they are not programmers. They do
>> not understand computers, they only understand money. When money is not
>> involved they get very confused.
>>
>> There was a time when HP was a company run by engineers but this is no longer
>> the case and it has not been for some time.
>
>Lewis Platt -> Carly Fiorina 1999 ??

Oh, it ended before Carly, although she certainly made it clear that things
were no longer the same.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <tc97pm$12u7d$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 8/1/2022 1:46 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-08-01, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What happened to all those VAX we heard about as recently as
>>> last year that were running production floors or being used
>>> by government sites where things like certification prevent
>>> moving to a more modern platform?
>>>
>>> I know they probably had/have non-expiring licenses but the
>>> consensus now seems to be that the only VAX users are hobbyists.
>>> Did all those production VAX just vanish overnight?
>>>
>>
>> In addition to Dan's comments, I suspect that when the VAX systems
>> (either emulated or physical) are finally retired, the replacement
>> systems for most of them will not be VMS based.
>
>Well, let's take a look ...
>
>Case 1:
>
>The entire system, not just computers, will be totally replaced or discarded.
>If replacing, then whatever solution works best, if such exist, might be chosen.
> Or perhaps a clean sheet solution will be designed and implemented.
>
>Case 2:
>The same needs exist, and an update for capabilities and/or hardware will be
>desired. If VMS still runs the existing applications best, then one would
>expect that VMS would be seriously considered. Anything else might cost more.

This is certainly valid, but something that these analyses tend
to omit is the ongoing maintenance cost over time. There was a
time when Digital and VMS had a large enough commercial presence
that VMS skills were relatively common; that time has passed.
Finding and training people to maintain these systems starts to
dominate the cost calculations after a while. As a result, it
makes no sense to invest in _new_ VMS development; going forward
it will be almost entirely maintenance (whatever new development
happens will be in support of legacy applications).

VMS's best chances for survival arguably lie in open sourcing
the system. VSI has given it a shot in the arm, but I don't
see how that's sustainable as maintenance costs rise.

>Case 3:
>
>Some WEENDOZE or Linux bigot is involved and declares the new system must
>correspond to the alleged bigotry.

This is an odd way to put it; another might be that ongoing
maintenance costs are reduced by going with something that's so
widespread. Note, I wouldn't advocate for Windows/MSFT for the
same reasons I wouldn't advocate for VMS for new development: it
is just too proprietary.

- Dan C.

On 8/2/2022 11:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tc97pm$12u7d$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/1/2022 1:46 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-01, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What happened to all those VAX we heard about as recently as
>>>> last year that were running production floors or being used
>>>> by government sites where things like certification prevent
>>>> moving to a more modern platform?
>>>>
>>>> I know they probably had/have non-expiring licenses but the
>>>> consensus now seems to be that the only VAX users are hobbyists.
>>>> Did all those production VAX just vanish overnight?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition to Dan's comments, I suspect that when the VAX systems
>>> (either emulated or physical) are finally retired, the replacement
>>> systems for most of them will not be VMS based.
>>
>> Well, let's take a look ...
>>
>> Case 1:
>>
>> The entire system, not just computers, will be totally replaced or discarded.
>> If replacing, then whatever solution works best, if such exist, might be chosen.
>> Or perhaps a clean sheet solution will be designed and implemented.
>>
>> Case 2:
>> The same needs exist, and an update for capabilities and/or hardware will be
>> desired. If VMS still runs the existing applications best, then one would
>> expect that VMS would be seriously considered. Anything else might cost more.
>
> This is certainly valid, but something that these analyses tend
> to omit is the ongoing maintenance cost over time. There was a
> time when Digital and VMS had a large enough commercial presence
> that VMS skills were relatively common; that time has passed.
> Finding and training people to maintain these systems starts to
> dominate the cost calculations after a while. As a result, it
> makes no sense to invest in _new_ VMS development; going forward
> it will be almost entirely maintenance (whatever new development
> happens will be in support of legacy applications).
>
> VMS's best chances for survival arguably lie in open sourcing
> the system. VSI has given it a shot in the arm, but I don't
> see how that's sustainable as maintenance costs rise.

I choose to disagree.

First, OpenSource is a non-issue. If the OS is up to date, and working, what
else is needed? It is obvious to me that nothing is really changed from the
past. VMS wasn't OpenSource then either. If it is still working, then it has
proven itself, something no other OS has done in the existing environment.

If the application(s) are currently in use, then perhaps there is already people
available for maintenance. If not, people can be trained. Expecting to hire
people with required explicit knowledge just doesn't happen. Some may know how
to click on WEENDOZE, or Linux, or anything else, but they do not know the needs
of the specific customer/user. The concept that there are knowledgeable people
out there that can step right in is bogus.

As far as cost, you get what you paid for. Find a cheap hacker, and that's what
you get.

>> Case 3:
>>
>> Some WEENDOZE or Linux bigot is involved and declares the new system must
>> correspond to the alleged bigotry.
>
> This is an odd way to put it; another might be that ongoing
> maintenance costs are reduced by going with something that's so
> widespread. Note, I wouldn't advocate for Windows/MSFT for the
> same reasons I wouldn't advocate for VMS for new development: it
> is just too proprietary.
>
> - Dan C.
>

Proprietary has nothing to do with anything. If you need to have staff to
support Linux, they are either expensive, or worthless, or both. Better to have
VSI software support, and any problems are their problem, not yours.

Some people think OpenSource is the cat's meow. I think they are wrong.

--
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

Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> Can't be. He's grinded so much, the axe is totally gone.
>

Simon must be well into reducing the axe handle to so much sawdust. When he
runs out of handle, will he start grinding down his hand?
😁