Den 2022-12-14 kl. 20:59, skrev Bill Gunshannon:
> 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.
>

In particular if those working with it are totaly blind for what is
happening in the IT world at large. Saying that VMS is so special that
it needs all kind of special tools and hardware (such as non-standard
keyboards) just pushes the VMS systems closer to the door.

The future for VMS is where the user are unaware that it is VMS under
the hood. It just runs very well and that is the only thing that matters.

> bill
>
>

On 12/14/2022 9:37 AM, chris wrote:
> 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.

It would be ridiculous with a modern desktop OS or
smartphone OS without a modern browser.

But for server OS I think no browser is sort
of the standard.

I don't think z/OS, i and Windows Core has a browser.
Linux servers obviously have browser available, but
rarely installs it. Browser support in Solaris, AIX
and HP-UX are better than in VMS but not good.

Most people run their servers more or less headless
and access them via browsers running on desktops.

Arne

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:>>> 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.

It seems to work fine for other.

The most common setup today must be headless Linux
servers accessed via browser from Windows PC (sometimes
ssh may be needed as well, but that is also from the
Windows PC).

No CIO's seems to object over that.

So VMS should be able to live with that.

Arne

On 12/14/2022 2:44 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> 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.

Yes.

Used among other things to access all the other servers
the company has. Linux, Windows, commercial Unix whatever.

Arne

On 12/14/2022 1:34 PM, 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:
>> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>
> The DECthreads server runs well on VMS.

And WASD. And Apache. And the embedded ones (Java and Python world).

Arne

On 12/14/2022 2:48 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-12-14 kl. 20:24, skrev Dave Froble:
>> On 12/14/2022 12:15 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> 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.

I believe it is quite common that the web interface
support a lot of functionality (50% magnitude)
that are used in most cases (99% magnitude).
So web browser is fine in most cases, but in the
remaining few cases one has to go command line.
Pretty much the model across most server stuff.

Arne

Den 2022-12-14 kl. 23:28, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
> On 12/14/2022 2:48 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2022-12-14 kl. 20:24, skrev Dave Froble:
>>> On 12/14/2022 12:15 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> I believe it is quite common that the web interface
> support a lot of functionality (50% magnitude)
> that are used in most cases (99% magnitude).
> So web browser is fine in most cases, but in the
> remaining few cases one has to go command line.
> Pretty much the model across most server stuff.
>
> Arne
>
>
>

As in the case when the web server doesn't start at boot...

On 12/14/22 17:15, 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"...
>
> 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.

Exactly, but it does need a web server on the target host to do that.
Is web based management available ion vms now. Iirc, I think there
was a product years ago that did that for vms and many others. A
sort of universal manage all idea.

The ilom on most servers i've seen in the past few years has primary
access via a browser and webpage layout, but you can also ssh across
the network and login via a terminal program via the serial port.

I'm not suggesting that a browser is essential, but it's just such
a useful tool. I use a gui interface for software dev, but usually
half a dozen or so terminal / shell windows open at once, as most
work is still done via command line. Just seems odd to me that there
is no web browser for vms.

Use all available tools, and the more options available, the easier
it can be to improve workflow...

Chris

>
> 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 12/14/2022 6:13 PM, chris wrote:
> On 12/14/22 17:15, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> And if you have a web server on VMS, the browser can run anyware.
>
> Exactly, but it does need a web server on the target host to do that.
> Is web based management available ion vms now. Iirc, I think there
> was a product years ago that did that for vms and many others. A
> sort of universal manage all idea.

I believe there was an old product years ago.

But VSI got a brand new product:

https://vmssoftware.com/products/webui/

Disclaimer: I have never used it. I am one of those
dinosaurs that prefer a DCL prompt. :-)

Arne

On 12/14/2022 2:35 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Today you cannot buy the smallest piece of electronics without
> an embedded web server for the mangement/config.

There may be some.

But yes an embedded web server is very common today.

Boa, Mongoose, thttpd etc..

Arne

On 12/14/22 12:32 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>
> Don't mention the OpenVMS Management Station, result of the notorious
> DEC/Microsoft alliance.

Right, no one should mention a decades-old and long-defunct product when
the only relevant thing to say about a browser-based management solution
for VMS is the product that actually provides it now:

https://vmssoftware.com/products/webui/

Mondesi from Mark Daniel is also pretty slick for performance monitoring.

On 12/14/2022 2:59 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.

Why?

Why do you call it names?

Why would most people want to get rid of something that is doing it's job, and
doing it well? Do you think they all have a death wish?

Most VMs systems that exist today exist because nothing could replace them. Got
to wonder how many other systems can make that claim.

--
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 12/14/2022 3:07 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2022-12-14 kl. 20:59, skrev Bill Gunshannon:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> In particular if those working with it are totaly blind for what is
> happening in the IT world at large. Saying that VMS is so special that
> it needs all kind of special tools and hardware (such as non-standard
> keyboards) just pushes the VMS systems closer to the door.
>
> The future for VMS is where the user are unaware that it is VMS under
> the hood. It just runs very well and that is the only thing that matters.

That is partially the bottom line. Whether anyone is aware that it's VMS isn't
so much an issue, but I understand the concept. Runs well and does the job is
what's important. What else comes close?

--
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 12/14/2022 2:44 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> 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".
>
>

If someone says "we want to be a 100% WEENDOZE shop", that's pretty much what
they are saying.

PS, I know you don't like the WEENDOZE term, sorry ...

--
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 12/14/2022 7:12 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 2:59 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/14/22 14:00, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Why would most people want to get rid of something that is doing it's
> job, and doing it well?  Do you think they all have a death wish?
>
> Most VMs systems that exist today exist because nothing could replace
> them.  Got to wonder how many other systems can make that claim.

Anything can be replaced.

But it will cost time and money. And It will come with risk.

If the system running on VMS could have been easily migrated to
Unix/Windows/Linux, then it would probably have happened.

Someone did the analysis and concluded that it was better
to stay on VMS. Or as it seems to often have been the case:
the conclusion was to postpone the migration 3-5 years, which
would make it a future problem instead of a current problem.

Arne

On 12/14/22 23:51, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>
> On 12/14/22 12:32 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>
>> Don't mention the OpenVMS Management Station, result of the notorious
>> DEC/Microsoft alliance.
>
> Right, no one should mention a decades-old and long-defunct product when
> the only relevant thing to say about a browser-based management solution
> for VMS is the product that actually provides it now:
>
> https://vmssoftware.com/products/webui/
>
> Mondesi from Mark Daniel is also pretty slick for performance monitoring.
>

That looks pretty neat. I think HP have something similar for the
Proliant series...

Chris

On 12/14/2022 7:18 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 2:44 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> 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".
>
> If someone says "we want to be a 100% WEENDOZE shop", that's pretty much
> what they are saying.

A long time ago then the difference between desktop Windows and
server Windows was indeed small and using both sort of made it
easier for IT to manage.

But today the difference between desktop/laptops running
Windows 10/11 and Windows server 2016/2019/2022 in either
VM's under VMWare ESXi or Hyper-V or in Azure possible doing
kubernetes containers are pretty big. Skill reuse is
not as big as it once was.

Arne

On 12/14/2022 2:48 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> 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.

Yes, and no. As soon as a web server is set up to manage an app, system,
whatever, then the implementation of the web server can become an issue. No web
server means no issue.

So yeah, it's a follow on issue, but only if a web server is implemented.

>> 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.

True. But you are the one that said that the browser wasn't the issue, a web
server was the issue. Don't blame me.

:-)

> 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.

--
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 19:12, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 2:59 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Why?
>
> Why do you call it names?

Not much on English idiom, are we.

>
> Why would most people want to get rid of something that is doing it's
> job, and doing it well?  Do you think they all have a death wish?

One reason would be because they went to a conference, told
their peers what they were running, and got laughed at. And,
yes, it does happen.

>
> Most VMs systems that exist today exist because nothing could replace
> them.  Got to wonder how many other systems can make that claim.

That is just plain ridiculous. I expect most VMS systems continue to
exist today because of momentum, nothing more. There is nothing that
is being done on VMS that could not be done on another system.

bill

On 12/14/2022 8:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/14/22 19:12, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 2:59 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Why do you call it names?
>
> Not much on English idiom, are we.
>
>>
>> Why would most people want to get rid of something that is doing it's job, and
>> doing it well? Do you think they all have a death wish?
>
> One reason would be because they went to a conference, told
> their peers what they were running, and got laughed at. And,
> yes, it does happen.
>
>>
>> Most VMs systems that exist today exist because nothing could replace them.
>> Got to wonder how many other systems can make that claim.
>
> That is just plain ridiculous. I expect most VMS systems continue to
> exist today because of momentum, nothing more. There is nothing that
> is being done on VMS that could not be done on another system.

Ok. Run VAX Basic on any other system. For that matter, run Macro-32 on any
other system.

If one has apps that run only on VMS then ...

Yeah, anything can be re-implemented, but that costs, costs much more than some
will admit. To what purpose? What's the business sense?

--
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 12/14/2022 7:29 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 7:18 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 2:44 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> 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".
>>
>> If someone says "we want to be a 100% WEENDOZE shop", that's pretty much what
>> they are saying.
>
> A long time ago then the difference between desktop Windows and
> server Windows was indeed small and using both sort of made it
> easier for IT to manage.
>
> But today the difference between desktop/laptops running
> Windows 10/11 and Windows server 2016/2019/2022 in either
> VM's under VMWare ESXi or Hyper-V or in Azure possible doing
> kubernetes containers are pretty big. Skill reuse is
> not as big as it once was.

What maleware differences are there in the two you mention?

--
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 Thu, 2022-12-15 at 02:34 -0500, Dave Froble
> > But today the difference between desktop/laptops running
> > Windows 10/11 and Windows server 2016/2019/2022 in either
> > VM's under VMWare ESXi or Hyper-V or in Azure possible doing
> > kubernetes containers are pretty big. Skill reuse is
> > not as big as it once was.
>
> What maleware differences are there in the two you mention?

Well some would say Windows _is_ the _malware_!
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

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.
>
> Arne

You are right. It only took 5 hours to get Mosaic working on X86.
But though it is 'only' 18 years old it is missing some features we
would need - and the character rendering is very zigzaggy.
I will try to get a hold on newer browser sources.

Andreas

Mark Berryman schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2022 um 20:26:35 UTC+1:
> 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

Thank you very much. I got it running. But (give me one finger and I'll take the whole hand) what about Ghostview?
Did you also run into trouble when trying to build it?
Andreas

Joukj schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Dezember 2022 um 08:54:04 UTC+1:
> 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
Your assumption seems true. None of the links that I found is still alive.
Would be great, if you could help me.
Getting Mosaic running on X86 wasn't difficult. But it is slightly too old....
Andreas