Andreas Gruhl wrote:
> Joukj schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 12:47:42 UTC+1:
>> Andreas Gruhl wrote:
>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 02:22:04 UTC+1:
>>>> On 12/12/2022 8:13 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2022 8:21 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> However, I wonder what would be involved in getting Dillo to build on
>>>>>> VMS:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dillo
>>>>> The two main potential problems must be compiler version support
>>>>> (especially C++) and X11 version support.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first will be solved when CLang becomes available on
>>>>> VMS x86-64.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will not know the actual problems until someone
>>>>> actually tries building it.
>>>> If one could live with very old HTML standards, then
>>>> the easiest graphical browser to get to build would
>>>> probably be VMS Mosaic. It builds with VMS C and I would
>>>> expect it to build on (currently: for) VMS x86-64.
>>>>
>>>> But it is 25 years old - older than VMS NetScape. There must
>>>> be a lot of missing features in 2022.
>>> Well, we could live with very old standards. We need no fancy stuff at all.
>>> If we just could find the source for one of the last browser versions compiled for Itanium we would dive into it and see what's coming out on X86.
>>> That would be far better than having nothing at all.
>> Some info is at (I did not test the compilation) at
>>
>> https://openvms-opensource.blogspot.com/2019/03/secure-web-browser-source.html
>>
>> From the same location as the CSWB sources I could download in the past
>> the sources of the firefox port for itanium.
>>
>> Jouk
>
> Thank you for the link. I missed it. I have some difficulties in accessing the sources but we will give it further tries.
> Andreas

All the sources are on "old" sites of HP. So i'm not sure if they are
present there. Anyway I have copies, but I have no idea if we can
distribute them.

Jouk

Andreas Gruhl schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 19:18:54 UTC+1:
> Mark Berryman schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 18:32:11 UTC+1:
> > On 12/12/22 4:53 AM, Andreas Gruhl wrote:
> > > Here comes a real life question:
> > >
> > > We have successfully ported our first application (Planning for public transport companies, 1.6 Mio Lines of Pascal) to X86.
> > >
> > > But: the application generates HTML and Postscript files. On Alpha and Itanium we can directly show these to the user via an old Mozilla browser and via Ghostview/Ghostscript. The browser is automatically launched by our application and directed to the correct page. Everything works just fine.
> > >
> > > Where can we get an equivalent of these display products for X86?
> > >
> > > Well, we have Sourcecode for Ghostscript and will try to build it - it doesn't look easy though.
> > >
> > > But we see no chance of raising an HTML browser on X86. We do not need all the latest bells and whistles. The software might be 10 years of age or even older - if it can be built on Alpha or Itanium, we could try building it on X86, provided we had access to the source code.
> > >
> > > And before you ask, why we not simply use display software on the user's desktop, here is my answer: the only connection between the desktop and our VMS server is via the X Protocol. This is commonly routed through products like Citrix or Teamviewer and the Exceed display server.
> > > So interactions between the VMS server and the desktop are quite limited.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
> > https://www.theberrymans.com/php_kits/ghostscript-9_56_1.zip has
> > ghostscript for x86.
> Hey, that's good news. I will gladly test it (as soon as I can reach theberrymans again).
> Thank You
> Andreas
Sorry Mark, I still cannot reach theberrymans.com via https. Ping works.
Btw: My own attempt of building Ghostscript 9.05 got stuck because MMK delivered a register dump when generating gv_class.h.
Andreas
> >
> > Mark Berryman

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 6:15:33 AM UTC-5, gr...@isidata.de wrote:
> Andreas Gruhl schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 19:18:54 UTC+1:
> > Mark Berryman schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 18:32:11 UTC+1:
> > > On 12/12/22 4:53 AM, Andreas Gruhl wrote:
> > > > Here comes a real life question:
> > > >
> > > > We have successfully ported our first application (Planning for public transport companies, 1.6 Mio Lines of Pascal) to X86.
> > > >
> > > > But: the application generates HTML and Postscript files. On Alpha and Itanium we can directly show these to the user via an old Mozilla browser and via Ghostview/Ghostscript. The browser is automatically launched by our application and directed to the correct page. Everything works just fine.
> > > >
> > > > Where can we get an equivalent of these display products for X86?
> > > >
> > > > Well, we have Sourcecode for Ghostscript and will try to build it - it doesn't look easy though.
> > > >
> > > > But we see no chance of raising an HTML browser on X86. We do not need all the latest bells and whistles. The software might be 10 years of age or even older - if it can be built on Alpha or Itanium, we could try building it on X86, provided we had access to the source code.
> > > >
> > > > And before you ask, why we not simply use display software on the user's desktop, here is my answer: the only connection between the desktop and our VMS server is via the X Protocol. This is commonly routed through products like Citrix or Teamviewer and the Exceed display server.
> > > > So interactions between the VMS server and the desktop are quite limited.
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
> > > https://www.theberrymans.com/php_kits/ghostscript-9_56_1.zip has
> > > ghostscript for x86.
> > Hey, that's good news. I will gladly test it (as soon as I can reach theberrymans again).
> > Thank You
> > Andreas
> Sorry Mark, I still cannot reach theberrymans.com via https. Ping works.
> Btw: My own attempt of building Ghostscript 9.05 got stuck because MMK delivered a register dump when generating gv_class.h.
> Andreas
> > >
> > > Mark Berryman

Just throwing this out there as a possibility...

If the concern is aging hardware, perhaps in the short term you can emulate the Alpha system? This will allow the loss of Alpha hardware without any change to the software environment. I know of many customers that have used this technique.

Full disclosure: I work for Stromasys, an emulator provider.
Dan

On 12/12/22 15:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 10:07 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <tn7fft$1i5h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>> Web browser is an entirely different story. I think the short
>>> version is that it will not happen.
>>
>> I remember when people were saying that VMS on x86 would never happen.
>
> x86-64 became more capable and Alpha and Itanium was dropped, so
> suddenly there were a business case for porting VMS to x86-64.
>
> Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot see any change
> in circumstances that would create a business case for web browser
> on VMS.
>

Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
naive.

Not easy to build Firefox, tried it here, endless dependencies on
other packages, but it will be needed, vms kicking and screaming or
not...

Chris

>>> * install a HTTP server on VMS and serve the files from that
>>
>>>     (requires opening up port 80)
>>
>> Or any other port.
>
> It could listen on any port. But the port number does not really matter.
>
> Arne
>
>

> Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
> naive.
>

OpenVMS has never "required" a browser for admin tasks or any other for that matter.
Not only is history part of the reason for this, but also the fact that there is often little to do.
I have seen systems that run for years with little to no "admin" because they just WORK.
No reboots, no changes to the apps, little maintenance, automatic backups etc.

How much Linux based admin requires a browser?

On 12/14/22 14:48, abrsvc wrote:
>> Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
>> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
>> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
>> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
>> naive.
>>
>
> OpenVMS has never "required" a browser for admin tasks or any other for that matter.
> Not only is history part of the reason for this, but also the fact that there is often little to do.
> I have seen systems that run for years with little to no "admin" because they just WORK.
> No reboots, no changes to the apps, little maintenance, automatic backups etc.
>
> How much Linux based admin requires a browser?

Have systems here with uptimes of years and none of them are vms,
though have been in the distant past. The common denominator for
all manner of everyday tasks is an html browser of some sort now.
External kit such as networking have provided a web page interface
for management for decades and is often the only possible access
method.

It's been a long time since the slogan, "the network is the
computer", but ever more true now, as connectivity and
interoperability are key to efficient systems. An html browser
is often the common link for all that...

Chris

Den 2022-12-14 kl. 15:37, skrev chris:
> On 12/12/22 15:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/12/2022 10:07 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article <tn7fft$1i5h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>> Web browser is an entirely different story. I think the short
>>>> version is that it will not happen.
>>>
>>> I remember when people were saying that VMS on x86 would never happen.
>>
>> x86-64 became more capable and Alpha and Itanium was dropped, so
>> suddenly there were a business case for porting VMS to x86-64.
>>
>> Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot see any change
>> in circumstances that would create a business case for web browser
>> on VMS.
>>
>
> Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
> support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
> naive.
>
> Not easy to build Firefox, tried it here, endless dependencies on
> other packages, but it will be needed, vms kicking and screaming or
> not...
>
> Chris
>

I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...

I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.

Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...

And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.

And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?

On 12/14/22 10:05, chris wrote:
> On 12/14/22 14:48, abrsvc wrote:
>>> Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
>>> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
>>> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
>>> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
>>> naive.
>>>
>>
>> OpenVMS has never "required" a browser for admin tasks or any other
>> for that matter.
>> Not only is history part of the reason for this, but also the fact
>> that there is often little to do.
>> I have seen systems that run for years with little to no "admin"
>> because they just WORK.
>> No reboots, no changes to the apps, little maintenance, automatic
>> backups etc.
>>
>> How much Linux based admin requires a browser?
>
> Have systems here with uptimes of years and none of them are vms,
> though have been in the distant past. The common denominator for
> all manner of everyday tasks is an html browser of some sort now.
> External kit such as networking have provided a web page interface
> for management for decades and is often the only possible access
> method.

Not always. If you dig deep enough you can often find a CLI buried
deep inside. Which is a good thing in some cases. AN example is
Cisco. There are many things that can not be done using their web
interface and must be done from the command line. Add to that the
fact that once someone has been forced to use the command line they
can never go back to the web interface as it will gleefully toss
any of the changes you made with the CLI because it doesn't
understand them. And not tell you it is doing such. :-)

>
> It's been a long time since the slogan, "the network is the
> computer", but ever more true now, as connectivity and
> interoperability are key to efficient systems. An html browser
> is often the common link for all that...
>

But not necessarily the best choice.

bill

In article <tncn3a$14aq$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris
<chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:

> Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
> support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
> naive.

Hear, hear.

I don't need, nor want it, for admin tasks, but otherwise it would
useful.

In article <7edad537-9467-4134-892f-b7fa5d1056ean@googlegroups.com>,
abrsvc <dansabrservices@yahoo.com> writes:

> > Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
> > html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
> > disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
> > think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
> > naive.

> OpenVMS has never "required" a browser for admin tasks or any other for
> that matter. Not only is history part of the reason for this, but also
> the fact that there is often little to do. I have seen systems that run
> for years with little to no "admin" because they just WORK. No reboots,
> no changes to the apps, little maintenance, automatic backups etc.

Right.

> How much Linux based admin requires a browser?

Probably none.

Don't mention the OpenVMS Management Station, result of the notorious
DEC/Microsoft alliance.

In article <tncon3$1tus$1@gioia.aioe.org>, chris
<chris-nospam@tridac.net> writes:

> External kit such as networking have provided a web page interface
> for management for decades and is often the only possible access
> method.

That is true. Some have an undocumented ASCII menu or even command-line
interface, but those are becoming less common.

> It's been a long time since the slogan, "the network is the
> computer", but ever more true now, as connectivity and
> interoperability are key to efficient systems. An html browser
> is often the common link for all that...

There is, of course, an xkcd for that.

In article <tnd0as$2r5mt$1@dont-email.me>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>
writes:

> I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...
>
> I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
> do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.
>
> Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...
>
> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.

The DECthreads server runs well on VMS.

> And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
> for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
> you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?

I did that until the VMS browsers became too old. Would be more than
happy to go back to that.

Jan-Erik Söderholm schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2022 um 18:15:11 UTC+1:
> Den 2022-12-14 kl. 15:37, skrev chris:
> > On 12/12/22 15:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2022 10:07 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> >>> In article <tn7fft$1i5h$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
> >>> <ar...@vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >>>> Web browser is an entirely different story. I think the short
> >>>> version is that it will not happen.
> >>>
> >>> I remember when people were saying that VMS on x86 would never happen..
> >>
> >> x86-64 became more capable and Alpha and Itanium was dropped, so
> >> suddenly there were a business case for porting VMS to x86-64.
> >>
> >> Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot see any change
> >> in circumstances that would create a business case for web browser
> >> on VMS.
> >>
> >
> > Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
> > support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
> > html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
> > disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
> > think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
> > naive.
> >
> > Not easy to build Firefox, tried it here, endless dependencies on
> > other packages, but it will be needed, vms kicking and screaming or
> > not...
> >
> > Chris
> >
> I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...
>
> I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
> do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.
>
> Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...
>
> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>
> And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
> for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
> you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?

You do not neccessarily need a web-server.
We use the browser to display HTML-files which we have just generated on the VMS server.
That's the equivalent of launching a text editor to allow the user to inspect a freshly created text file.
The difference is, that HTML offers enormous advantages over text files (rendering, navigation, table layouts etc.).
By using a local browser we can directly point it to the desired file (and even some location within this file).
And we enable the output image to flow directly through the already established X Protocol connection without the need to open additional communication ports. Works excellent on Alpha and Itanium.

Andreas

On 12/14/22 13:32, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <7edad537-9467-4134-892f-b7fa5d1056ean@googlegroups.com>,
> abrsvc <dansabrservices@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
>>> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
>>> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
>>> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
>>> naive.
>
>> OpenVMS has never "required" a browser for admin tasks or any other for
>> that matter. Not only is history part of the reason for this, but also
>> the fact that there is often little to do. I have seen systems that run
>> for years with little to no "admin" because they just WORK. No reboots,
>> no changes to the apps, little maintenance, automatic backups etc.
>
> Right.
>
>> How much Linux based admin requires a browser?
>
> Probably none.

This is like most polls. Just ask a question worded so the results meet
your desires.

While very few (some small number greater than 0) require a browser
or GUI, many offer it and many admins use them. I, personally, still
doing as much as I can from the shell but sometimes the GUI admin is
the only usable game in town.

>
> Don't mention the OpenVMS Management Station, result of the notorious
> DEC/Microsoft alliance.
>

I had (maybe even still have) some Windows package from one of the many
owners of VMS that did GUI admin from a Windows PC. I don't recognize
the name mentioned above so it seems there may have been more than one.

bill

On 12/14/22 13:34, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <tnd0as$2r5mt$1@dont-email.me>,
> =?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>
> writes:
>
>> I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...
>>
>> I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
>> do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.
>>
>> Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...
>>
>> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>
> The DECthreads server runs well on VMS.
>
>> And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
>> for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
>> you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?
>
> I did that until the VMS browsers became too old. Would be more than
> happy to go back to that.
>

When you're trying to sell the C?? levels on the idea of keeping
VMS around, it does not go well telling them that in order to use
it effectively you will also need to have Linux or Windows around.

bill

On 2022-12-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When you're trying to sell the C?? levels on the idea of keeping
> VMS around, it does not go well telling them that in order to use
> it effectively you will also need to have Linux or Windows around.
>

That doesn't make much sense. z/OS has PC-based development tools,
and many network or embedded devices require a web browser running
elsewhere for management interface purposes.

VMS should be regarded much more like an embedded device than it is
at the moment when it comes to managing it, if you want it to survive
in today's world.

C?? levels don't have a problem with management of devices from a PC.
In fact, it's a well-known and comfortable concept for them.

Simon.

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

In article <1ae27098-c7b2-444c-85ea-f62df1b5600an@googlegroups.com>,
Andreas Gruhl <gruhl@isidata.de> writes:

> You do not neccessarily need a web-server.

Right.

> We use the browser to display HTML-files which we have just generated on
> the VMS server. That's the equivalent of launching a text editor to
> allow the user to inspect a freshly created text file. The difference
> is, that HTML offers enormous advantages over text files (rendering,
> navigation, table layouts etc.). By using a local browser we can
> directly point it to the desired file (and even some location within
> this file). And we enable the output image to flow directly through the
> already established X Protocol connection without the need to open
> additional communication ports. Works excellent on Alpha and Itanium.

If you don't need images, LYNX works and would probably build easily.

On 2022-12-14, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> wrote:
> On 12/12/22 15:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> x86-64 became more capable and Alpha and Itanium was dropped, so
>> suddenly there were a business case for porting VMS to x86-64.
>>
>> Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot see any change
>> in circumstances that would create a business case for web browser
>> on VMS.
>>

Neither can I.

>
> Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
> support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
> naive.
>

Typically, what you would do in that situation is to run an embedded
webserver on the device in question and manage it from across the
network using a web browser running on a PC.

Simon.

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

On 12/14/2022 12:15 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-12-14 kl. 15:37, skrev chris:
>> On 12/12/22 15:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2022 10:07 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> In article <tn7fft$1i5h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>>>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>> Web browser is an entirely different story. I think the short
>>>>> version is that it will not happen.
>>>>
>>>> I remember when people were saying that VMS on x86 would never happen.
>>>
>>> x86-64 became more capable and Alpha and Itanium was dropped, so
>>> suddenly there were a business case for porting VMS to x86-64.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot see any change
>>> in circumstances that would create a business case for web browser
>>> on VMS.
>>>
>>
>> Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
>> support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
>> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
>> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
>> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
>> naive.
>>
>> Not easy to build Firefox, tried it here, endless dependencies on
>> other packages, but it will be needed, vms kicking and screaming or
>> not...
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...

No, you didn't. Those others did.

:-)

> I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
> do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.

Ayep!

> Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...
>
> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>
> And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
> for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
> you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?

There are more than a few issues.

If a web server doesn't implement all the functionality that a basic CLI
provides, then the browser cannot serve those options.

Quite often, a web server interface to various tools, apps, and such is added on
over top of whatever command set the tool, app, and such provides, and, perhaps
by different people. Having 100% compatibility can be questionable.

On the other hand, if the web server implements all possible commands, then it
can be much easier to use. If I haven't done a particular task for some length
of time, I perhaps have forgotten things, and a good job of implementing the
task(s) on a web server can be helpful.

As Jan-Erik has mentioned, where the user's browser is running is rather
flexible. But you must have the web server.

--
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 12/14/22 4:15 AM, Andreas Gruhl wrote:
> Andreas Gruhl schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 19:18:54 UTC+1:
>> Mark Berryman schrieb am Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2022 um 18:32:11 UTC+1:
>>> On 12/12/22 4:53 AM, Andreas Gruhl wrote:
>>>> Here comes a real life question:
>>>>
>>>> We have successfully ported our first application (Planning for public transport companies, 1.6 Mio Lines of Pascal) to X86.
>>>>
>>>> But: the application generates HTML and Postscript files. On Alpha and Itanium we can directly show these to the user via an old Mozilla browser and via Ghostview/Ghostscript. The browser is automatically launched by our application and directed to the correct page. Everything works just fine.
>>>>
>>>> Where can we get an equivalent of these display products for X86?
>>>>
>>>> Well, we have Sourcecode for Ghostscript and will try to build it - it doesn't look easy though.
>>>>
>>>> But we see no chance of raising an HTML browser on X86. We do not need all the latest bells and whistles. The software might be 10 years of age or even older - if it can be built on Alpha or Itanium, we could try building it on X86, provided we had access to the source code.
>>>>
>>>> And before you ask, why we not simply use display software on the user's desktop, here is my answer: the only connection between the desktop and our VMS server is via the X Protocol. This is commonly routed through products like Citrix or Teamviewer and the Exceed display server.
>>>> So interactions between the VMS server and the desktop are quite limited.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you.
>>> https://www.theberrymans.com/php_kits/ghostscript-9_56_1.zip has
>>> ghostscript for x86.
>> Hey, that's good news. I will gladly test it (as soon as I can reach theberrymans again).
>> Thank You
>> Andreas
> Sorry Mark, I still cannot reach theberrymans.com via https. Ping works.
> Btw: My own attempt of building Ghostscript 9.05 got stuck because MMK delivered a register dump when generating gv_class.h.

Try it now.

Mark Berryman

On 12/14/2022 1:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/14/22 13:34, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <tnd0as$2r5mt$1@dont-email.me>,
>> =?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>
>> writes:
>>
>>> I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...
>>>
>>> I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
>>> do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.
>>>
>>> Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...
>>>
>>> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>>
>> The DECthreads server runs well on VMS.
>>
>>> And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
>>> for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
>>> you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?
>>
>> I did that until the VMS browsers became too old. Would be more than
>> happy to go back to that.
>>
>
> When you're trying to sell the C?? levels on the idea of keeping
> VMS around, it does not go well telling them that in order to use
> it effectively you will also need to have Linux or Windows around.
>
> bill
>

I strongly disagree.

There is the system(s) that run the critical and needed apps, and there is the
user interface. To expect the user interface to do all that the app system(s)
do is not very reasonable. Trying to force that can be very unreasonable.

Also, using one common system will have security issues. Does anyone really
want their critical servers to be accessable by the same malware that usually
affects the user interface systems?

--
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

Den 2022-12-14 kl. 20:04, skrev Simon Clubley:
> On 2022-12-14, chris <chris-nospam@tridac.net> wrote:
>> On 12/12/22 15:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>
>>> x86-64 became more capable and Alpha and Itanium was dropped, so
>>> suddenly there were a business case for porting VMS to x86-64.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot see any change
>>> in circumstances that would create a business case for web browser
>>> on VMS.
>>>
>
> Neither can I.
>
>>
>> Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
>> support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
>> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
>> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
>> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
>> naive.
>>
>
> Typically, what you would do in that situation is to run an embedded
> webserver on the device in question and manage it from across the
> network using a web browser running on a PC.
>
> Simon.
>

Today you cannot buy the smallest piece of electronics without
an embedded web server for the mangement/config.

And there is no (rounded value) professional in the IT business
that doesn't use a desktop such as Windows (the wast majority)
or Apple/Linux for their daily work. And there runs the browser.

Those claming that VMS needs a web browser are simply not up to
date with todays IT world.

Den 2022-12-14 kl. 20:29, skrev Dave Froble:
> On 12/14/2022 1:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/14/22 13:34, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article <tnd0as$2r5mt$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...
>>>>
>>>> I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
>>>> do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.
>>>>
>>>> Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...
>>>>
>>>> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>>>
>>> The DECthreads server runs well on VMS.
>>>
>>>> And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
>>>> for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
>>>> you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?
>>>
>>> I did that until the VMS browsers became too old.  Would be more than
>>> happy to go back to that.
>>>
>>
>> When you're trying to sell the C?? levels on the idea of keeping
>> VMS around, it does not go well telling them that in order to use
>> it effectively you will also need to have Linux or Windows around.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> I strongly disagree.

I also disagree, in a way.

You do not need to tell anyone that you "also need Linux or Windows"
(client systems), they are in the majority of cases alrady there.

>
> There is the system(s) that run the critical and needed apps, and there is
> the user interface.  To expect the user interface to do all that the app
> system(s) do is not very reasonable.  Trying to force that can be very
> unreasonable.

Now I do not understand what you are talkning about. No one is saying that
the client systems should "do all that the app system(s) do".

Den 2022-12-14 kl. 20:24, skrev Dave Froble:
> On 12/14/2022 12:15 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2022-12-14 kl. 15:37, skrev chris:
>>> On 12/12/22 15:36, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2022 10:07 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>>> In article <tn7fft$1i5h$1@gioia.aioe.org>, =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?=
>>>>> <arne@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>>> Web browser is an entirely different story. I think the short
>>>>>> version is that it will not happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember when people were saying that VMS on x86 would never happen.
>>>>
>>>> x86-64 became more capable and Alpha and Itanium was dropped, so
>>>> suddenly there were a business case for porting VMS to x86-64.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot see any change
>>>> in circumstances that would create a business case for web browser
>>>> on VMS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ridiculous situation, for any modern os not to have html browser
>>> support. Admin and other everyday tasks have required the use of a
>>> html browser for decades now and the lack of puts vms at a serious
>>> disadvantage from a systems management point of view. People still
>>> think a text only interface is good enough in 2022 ?, complately
>>> naive.
>>>
>>> Not easy to build Firefox, tried it here, endless dependencies on
>>> other packages, but it will be needed, vms kicking and screaming or
>>> not...
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>> I must have completely missed the whole "web-thing"...
>
> No, you didn't.  Those others did.
>
> :-)
>
>> I thought that any web-browser must have a web-server to actually
>> do any "work" at all. You cannot do much with a browser alone.
>
> Ayep!
>
>> Only having a browser on VMS doesn't help much...
>>
>> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>>
>> And it is much more practical to use the same browser that you use
>> for everything else, the one on your laptop/desktop system. Or is
>> you plan to use the VMS browser for all your other everyday tasks?
>
> There are more than a few issues.
>
> If a web server doesn't implement all the functionality that a basic CLI
> provides, then the browser cannot serve those options.

But that is a completely different question.

>
> Quite often, a web server interface to various tools, apps, and such is
> added on over top of whatever command set the tool, app, and such provides,
> and, perhaps by different people.  Having 100% compatibility can be
> questionable.

Not sure what you are talkning about. That has nothing to do with having
a web browser native on VMS.

And many embedded devices have both web and CLI interfaces.

>
> On the other hand, if the web server implements all possible commands,
> then it can be much easier to use.  If I haven't done a particular task for
> some length of time, I perhaps have forgotten things, and a good job of
> implementing the task(s) on a web server can be helpful.
>
> As Jan-Erik has mentioned, where the user's browser is running is rather
> flexible.  But you must have the web server.
>

Right. 100% correct.

On 12/14/22 14:00, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-12-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When you're trying to sell the C?? levels on the idea of keeping
>> VMS around, it does not go well telling them that in order to use
>> it effectively you will also need to have Linux or Windows around.
>>
>
> That doesn't make much sense. z/OS has PC-based development tools,

VMS isn't zOS. Most CEOs and CIOs have heard of zOS and IBM can the
same be said for VMS and VSI?

> and many network or embedded devices require a web browser running
> elsewhere for management interface purposes.
>
> VMS should be regarded much more like an embedded device than it is
> at the moment when it comes to managing it, if you want it to survive
> in today's world.
>
> C?? levels don't have a problem with management of devices from a PC.
> In fact, it's a well-known and comfortable concept for them.

No, but I imagine a lot of them do have a problem with that red-headed
step child called VMS and will use any excuse they can find to get rid
of it.

bill