In article <tncms9$2qee4$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 12/14/2022 8:59 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tk9jug$12ar$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> If VSI goes bust - which there is no indication that it will - and
>>> if there is noone picking up VMS - which seems unlikely if there
>>> are companies willing to pay - and it falls unlucky at the
>>> end of a license period and if the server is critical and if
>>> they did not negotiate and got a forever license from VSI, then
>>> it would be a problem.
>>>
>>> But that is a lot of if's.
>>
>> That _is_ a lot of if's, but still "what if?"s that need to be
>> addressed, and none of them are relevant to Linux. A small
>> likelihood of catastrophic failure is still non-zero; why chance
>> it when one need not?
>
>Many can play the ""what if" game ...
>
>Would we ever have left the caves, if some were willing to try something new, or
>in the case of VMS, something old?
>
>You seem to think Linux is a better choice. Fine. But that doesn't make you
>right, or wrong. Just different.

Incorrect; see below.

>Bottom line, some of us like VMS. The question is, why do you attempt to talk
>us out of it?

This is where you guys don't get it.

You say you like VMS? I don't believe you, because if you liked
it, if you wanted to see it thrive and continue to be useful,
then you'd face up to the fact that you have to answer a lot of
hard questions. Now, in late 2022, not 30 years ago, and not by
deflection or appeal to the storied reputation of the distant
past.

You'd better figure out how those answer the hard questions
because purchasing managers _will_ ask them or they wouldn't be
doing their due dilligence.

>I might ask, "why chance Linux if one need not?"

That sounds a lot more like something I'd expect from a
hobbyist than anyone seriously working on production systems.

Again, you guys really just don't seem to get it: the world
went through the era of vendor-locked proprietary systems and
came out the other end. No one wants to deal with that again.

If you _like_ VMS and want it to be competitive, then come up
with some good answers to these questions and nightmare, "what
if?" scenarios. Hope is not a strategy and getting mad at
people who ask the questions isn't going to keep VMS alive.

- Dan C.

On 12/14/2022 2:10 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-12-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 1:51 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-14, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line, some of us like VMS. The question is, why do you attempt to talk
>>>> us out of it?
>>>>
>>>
>>> He's not talking you out of it. He's pointing out things that people who
>>> are not emotionally attached to VMS are going to base their decisions on.
>>
>> And you really believe that Linux is perfect, has no down sides, has no issues?
>>
>
> Nothing is perfect, including VMS or Linux.
>
> However, Linux is a _lot_ better suited to today's world than VMS
> currently is.
>
> Simon.
>

Depends upon your perspective, right?

Your perspective appears to have security foremost. Maybe so, don't know.

My perspective is being able to run VAX Basic programs. Linux loses there big time.

I'm sure there are many perspectives.

--
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 3:04 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tncms9$2qee4$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 8:59 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <tk9jug$12ar$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> If VSI goes bust - which there is no indication that it will - and
>>>> if there is noone picking up VMS - which seems unlikely if there
>>>> are companies willing to pay - and it falls unlucky at the
>>>> end of a license period and if the server is critical and if
>>>> they did not negotiate and got a forever license from VSI, then
>>>> it would be a problem.
>>>>
>>>> But that is a lot of if's.
>>>
>>> That _is_ a lot of if's, but still "what if?"s that need to be
>>> addressed, and none of them are relevant to Linux. A small
>>> likelihood of catastrophic failure is still non-zero; why chance
>>> it when one need not?
>>
>> Many can play the ""what if" game ...
>>
>> Would we ever have left the caves, if some were willing to try something new, or
>> in the case of VMS, something old?
>>
>> You seem to think Linux is a better choice. Fine. But that doesn't make you
>> right, or wrong. Just different.
>
> Incorrect; see below.
>
>> Bottom line, some of us like VMS. The question is, why do you attempt to talk
>> us out of it?
>
> This is where you guys don't get it.

Oh, I get it just fine.

> You say you like VMS? I don't believe you, because if you liked
> it, if you wanted to see it thrive and continue to be useful,
> then you'd face up to the fact that you have to answer a lot of
> hard questions. Now, in late 2022, not 30 years ago, and not by
> deflection or appeal to the storied reputation of the distant
> past.

I agree 100%. Issues need answers. But sometimes some people won't like the
answers. For instance the size of VSI. It is what it is. IBM isn't going to
support VMS. However, you seem to imply that that is a show stopper. You're
entitled to your opinion. But there can, and are, other opinions.

> You'd better figure out how those answer the hard questions
> because purchasing managers _will_ ask them or they wouldn't be
> doing their due dilligence.
>
>> I might ask, "why chance Linux if one need not?"
>
> That sounds a lot more like something I'd expect from a
> hobbyist than anyone seriously working on production systems.

Well, with over 45 years working in IT, perhaps I'm a bit more than a hobbyist.

> Again, you guys really just don't seem to get it: the world
> went through the era of vendor-locked proprietary systems and
> came out the other end. No one wants to deal with that again.

Your opinion is then universal, and must be accepted by everyone?

> If you _like_ VMS and want it to be competitive, then come up
> with some good answers to these questions and nightmare, "what
> if?" scenarios. Hope is not a strategy and getting mad at
> people who ask the questions isn't going to keep VMS alive.

Not mad, or even angry. I too ask those questions.

--
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 3:02 PM, abrsvc wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 2:10:17 PM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-12-14, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> And you really believe that Linux is perfect, has no down sides, has no issues?
>>>
>> Nothing is perfect, including VMS or Linux.
>>
>> However, Linux is a _lot_ better suited to today's world than VMS
>> currently is.
>
> Given that I am aware of a number of customer sites that were hit
> with security issues with NO issues at all with the OpenVMS systems,
> I would disagree. At these same sites, ALL Windows systems were
> compromised and some of the Linux based ones were too. Only the
> OpenVMS systems escaped unscathed.
I am sure that is a relative common scenario.

But it also seems very likely that this is more due to the
fact the the bad guys had no clue about VMS than the
security features of VMS.

The average script kiddies does not know about VMS. The
typical cyber criminal does not want to spend time on VMS -
it is so much more rewarding to go after server OS'es with
millions of servers. But then there are those that are
specifically targeting one server and does not care about
cost - likely "state actors" - that is where the
"security from being small and unknown" no longer works.

Arne

On 12/14/2022 8:59 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tk9jug$12ar$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 11/2/2022 9:30 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> could you also answer why people would be
>>> willing to put the future of their company at risk by buying a product
>>> from a small vendor (VSI) that will stop working if that vendor goes bust ?
>>
>> If VSI goes bust - which there is no indication that it will - and
>> if there is noone picking up VMS - which seems unlikely if there
>> are companies willing to pay - and it falls unlucky at the
>> end of a license period and if the server is critical and if
>> they did not negotiate and got a forever license from VSI, then
>> it would be a problem.
>>
>> But that is a lot of if's.
>
> That _is_ a lot of if's, but still "what if?"s that need to be
> addressed, and none of them are relevant to Linux. A small
> likelihood of catastrophic failure is still non-zero; why chance
> it when one need not?

We live in a world with lots of risks. It is impossible
to avoid all risks.

People need to evaluate risks and decide whether the
risk is high enough to require action and what type
of action is warranted.

Different people may be in different situations and
have different risk aversion, so they may make different
decisions.

For the particular issue, then I consider the risk too
big to ignore and too small to warrant an immediate
migration off VMS (or an immediate stop of plans for
migrating to VMS). Instead it seems appropriate to
complain to VSI and request some alternative models.

Other people may come to a different conclusion.

Given that there must be lots of risks that
apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
not make Linux more attractive.

Arne

In article <tndo98$2t5k1$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 12/14/2022 3:04 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tncms9$2qee4$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Bottom line, some of us like VMS. The question is, why do you attempt to talk
>>> us out of it?
>>
>> This is where you guys don't get it.
>
>Oh, I get it just fine.

No, you really don't.

>> You say you like VMS? I don't believe you, because if you liked
>> it, if you wanted to see it thrive and continue to be useful,
>> then you'd face up to the fact that you have to answer a lot of
>> hard questions. Now, in late 2022, not 30 years ago, and not by
>> deflection or appeal to the storied reputation of the distant
>> past.
>
>I agree 100%. Issues need answers. But sometimes some people won't like the
>answers. For instance the size of VSI. It is what it is. IBM isn't going to
>support VMS. However, you seem to imply that that is a show stopper. You're
>entitled to your opinion. But there can, and are, other opinions.

Okay. Let's say I'm a purchasing manager and I'm evaluating
options for building a _new_ system. My choices are between VMS
and Linux. I'm going to ask my VSI sales rep, "what do I do if
you go out of business in 5 years?" How should I respond if
they say, "well, we're a small company; it is what it is." "Do
you support the same security features Linux does that I have a
regulatory obligation to make use of?" "No, but you don't need
them. And by the way, there was a breakin and the VMS systems
weren't even probed, let alone broken into!" "I can put out a
req for a Linux system administrator and find tons of qualified
applicants; where do I find qualified VMS system managers that
won't blow my budget?" "Perhaps I can interest you in some
value adding training as an added line-item?" "Why should I
buy a license from you if I might be stranded should you
disappear." "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
Ok, Lebowski.

Yeah, are any of these showstoppers? No. But given any
reasonable objective comparison, why would someone choose VMS?

>> You'd better figure out how those answer the hard questions
>> because purchasing managers _will_ ask them or they wouldn't be
>> doing their due dilligence.
>>
>>> I might ask, "why chance Linux if one need not?"
>>
>> That sounds a lot more like something I'd expect from a
>> hobbyist than anyone seriously working on production systems.
>
>Well, with over 45 years working in IT, perhaps I'm a bit more than a hobbyist.

Then why are you acting like a hobbyist?

Let me be blunt: I don't care how _long_ you've been in IT.
That, by itself, doesn't mean anything except that you've been
occupying a desk and drawing breath for a long while; it doesn't
mean you have a good understanding of the issues at play, let
alone the considerations people making purchasing decisions are
going to have to weight.

In _my_ experience, people who point to the length of their
experience, as opposed to specific accomplishments, more often
don't have many specific accomplishments.

>> Again, you guys really just don't seem to get it: the world
>> went through the era of vendor-locked proprietary systems and
>> came out the other end. No one wants to deal with that again.
>
>Your opinion is then universal, and must be accepted by everyone?

It's not an opinion. It is a simple statement of fact that the
landscape has changed fundamentally from when DEC was pushing
VMS as a serious competitor. You want to see VMS compete in the
marketplace? Better figure out the answers to some of these
tough questions, no matter how uncomfortable they make you, or
how much you resent these young whipper-snappers who are only
pushing 30 years of experience relative to your 45 for having
the temerity of asking them in the first place.

>> If you _like_ VMS and want it to be competitive, then come up
>> with some good answers to these questions and nightmare, "what
>> if?" scenarios. Hope is not a strategy and getting mad at
>> people who ask the questions isn't going to keep VMS alive.
>
>Not mad, or even angry. I too ask those questions.

Then stop throwing invective at those of us who also like VMS,
don't want to see it disappear, and want real answers to these
questions.

Shesh. It's not that hard people. It's not your like someone
is calling your baby ugly.

- Dan C.

In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>[snip]
>Given that there must be lots of risks that
>apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>not make Linux more attractive.

This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.

For giggles, let's assume there is one (something something
clustering and distributed disks). How many of those sorts
of things exist for Linux versus how many exist for VMS? What
is the ratio?

Too many in this newsgroup (and the mirrored mailing list)
continue to ignore this question, to the hazard of the continued
viability of the software.

- Dan C.

On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>> not make Linux more attractive.
>
> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
> to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.

Vulnerabilities in systemd.

GPL being declared illegal by the supreme court.

VMS does not have systemd.

VMS is not under GPL.

VMS and Linux are different. There must be thousands/millions of
things that could go wrong for VMS without impacting Linux
and thousands/millions of things that could go wrong for Linux
without impacting VMS.

Arne

In article <tnduv4$68n$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>>
>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>> to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.
>
>Vulnerabilities in systemd.

First of all, it is not necessary to run systemd, and there are
Linux distros that don't ship it.

But if we're going to go there, now count vulnerabilities in
VMS...but apply the same microscope of research to VMS that we
do to Linux, to make it a fair comparison.

>GPL being declared illegal by the supreme court.

The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
never even been close to an outcome. Moreover, how many
large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
happen? Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
existing caselaw?

>VMS does not have systemd.

Not every Linux distribution has systemd, either.

But VMS does have a bunch of services that have received no
significant security attention over the last 30 years.

Moreover Linux is the most popular operating system in the
world, and runs on everything from cell phones to every top-500
supercomputer in the world; I'd estimate that it has more cycles
run through it in a minute than VMS ever did in its entire
existence. That's a lot of security scrutinization.

>VMS is not under GPL.

No, it's not. What licenses _does_ it fall under? I keep
hearing something about Oracle; suppose they try and sue VSI to
enforce some sort of rights? If we're talking nightmare
license scenarios, that seems more likely than the GPL being
nullified in US courts.

>VMS and Linux are different. There must be thousands/millions of
>things that could go wrong for VMS without impacting Linux
>and thousands/millions of things that could go wrong for Linux
>without impacting VMS.

Yes, they are different. But if "systemd and the GPL" are the
best examples of risks people can come up with for Linux, it's
reinforcing my thesis that choosing Linux is a lot less risky
than choosing VMS.

I contend that the number of risks for VMS is much greater than
the number for Linux; they're not even within the same order of
magnitude. And I _like_ VMS and want to see it be successful;
those with purchasing power could probably care less and see
only the drawbacks.

Sorry, but I'd wager a year's salary that this is how most
purchasing agents would see the matter. It is NOT making the
case for VMS. Folks who want to see VMS succeed need to do
better to make the case for it.

- Dan C.

On 12/14/2022 10:56 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tnduv4$68n$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>>>
>>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>>> to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.
>>
>> Vulnerabilities in systemd.
>
> First of all, it is not necessary to run systemd, and there are
> Linux distros that don't ship it.
>
> But if we're going to go there, now count vulnerabilities in
> VMS...but apply the same microscope of research to VMS that we
> do to Linux, to make it a fair comparison.
>
>> GPL being declared illegal by the supreme court.
>
> The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
> never even been close to an outcome. Moreover, how many
> large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
> If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
> not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
> mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
> happen? Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
> existing caselaw?

Nothing is guaranteed. How many actually though Roe vs Wade would be reversed?
The unexpected can happen.

>> VMS does not have systemd.
>
> Not every Linux distribution has systemd, either.
>
> But VMS does have a bunch of services that have received no
> significant security attention over the last 30 years.
>
> Moreover Linux is the most popular operating system in the
> world, and runs on everything from cell phones to every top-500
> supercomputer in the world; I'd estimate that it has more cycles
> run through it in a minute than VMS ever did in its entire
> existence. That's a lot of security scrutinization.
>
>> VMS is not under GPL.
>
> No, it's not. What licenses _does_ it fall under? I keep
> hearing something about Oracle; suppose they try and sue VSI to
> enforce some sort of rights? If we're talking nightmare
> license scenarios, that seems more likely than the GPL being
> nullified in US courts.
>
>> VMS and Linux are different. There must be thousands/millions of
>> things that could go wrong for VMS without impacting Linux
>> and thousands/millions of things that could go wrong for Linux
>> without impacting VMS.
>
> Yes, they are different. But if "systemd and the GPL" are the
> best examples of risks people can come up with for Linux, it's
> reinforcing my thesis that choosing Linux is a lot less risky
> than choosing VMS.
>
> I contend that the number of risks for VMS is much greater than
> the number for Linux; they're not even within the same order of
> magnitude. And I _like_ VMS and want to see it be successful;
> those with purchasing power could probably care less and see
> only the drawbacks.
>
> Sorry, but I'd wager a year's salary that this is how most
> purchasing agents would see the matter. It is NOT making the
> case for VMS. Folks who want to see VMS succeed need to do
> better to make the case for it.

If a purchasing agent is making IT decisions, then perhaps the customer is
already screwed.

If VMS proviodes the best solution/environment for a particular task, and it is
not chosen, isn't that also taking a risk?

--
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

Le 15-12-2022, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> a écrit :
> On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>>
>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>> to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.
>
> Vulnerabilities in systemd.

You can use SysV init.

In linux kernel (and glibc), you can find a lot of bugs due to null
pointers or buffer overflows. In my case, I have replaced all Linux
servers by NetBSD systems.

JKB

--
Si votre demande me parvient en code 29, je vous titiouillerai volontiers
une réponse.

> My perspective is being able to run VAX Basic programs.  Linux loses
> there big time.
>
> I'm sure there are many perspectives.
>

Issue is not only running VAX Basic programs but running VAX Basic
programs written on top of AP Tools (for example). Those are currently
stuck to AXP.

Most customers have used third party tools/libraries that don't exist
anymore. If they must rewrite their applications to get rid of them,
they will more likely get rid of VMS also and use more "mainstream"
OS/language/....

In article <tnei5b$31mru$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
>> never even been close to an outcome. Moreover, how many
>> large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
>> If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
>> not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
>> mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
>> happen? Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
>> existing caselaw?
>
>Nothing is guaranteed. How many actually though Roe vs Wade would be reversed?
>The unexpected can happen.

Yup. All atoms in a rock could spontaneously go in the same
direction, propelling it with great force. I suspect that is
about as likely as the GPL being nullified by SCOTUS. People
had been gunning for Roe for decades in contrast.

>> [snip]
>> Sorry, but I'd wager a year's salary that this is how most
>> purchasing agents would see the matter. It is NOT making the
>> case for VMS. Folks who want to see VMS succeed need to do
>> better to make the case for it.
>
>If a purchasing agent is making IT decisions, then perhaps the customer is
>already screwed.

Someone in IT is going to be asking these questions, and if they
are not, then they are not doing their job. It's really that
simple.

>If VMS proviodes the best solution/environment for a particular task, and it is
>not chosen, isn't that also taking a risk?

Again, you guys don't seem to get it. This question is
predicated on the assumption that there is a "particular task"
for which VMS provides the best solution/environment. Yet, no
one seems to be able to articulate what that would be, or, more
importantly, why.

Folks need to reach deep and ask themselves how they can make
the case for VMS, not be butt-hurt that people are asking, "what
is the case for VMS?" If someone on USENET can trivially shoot
down the arguments, that does not bode well.

You want VMS to be successful? Then explain why, outside of
legacy environments, it is the best platform for _any_ task, and
in particular why it is better than Linux. Spare me the
platitudes and abstruse relativelism; "they both have different
risks..." is nonsense: I don't believe anyone is actually
advancing that argument in good faith. It is obvious that VMS
is riskier than Linux in this day and age, by orders of
magnitude. And if people want VMS to survive outside of a
dwindling set of legacy applications, they need to articulate
why.

- Dan C.

On 12/15/2022 5:10 AM, rejoc wrote:
>> My perspective is being able to run VAX Basic programs. Linux loses there big
>> time.
>>
>> I'm sure there are many perspectives.
>>
>
> Issue is not only running VAX Basic programs but running VAX Basic programs
> written on top of AP Tools (for example). Those are currently stuck to AXP.
>
> Most customers have used third party tools/libraries that don't exist anymore.
> If they must rewrite their applications to get rid of them, they will more
> likely get rid of VMS also and use more "mainstream" OS/language/....
>

Anyone who does not have all sources for their apps, doesn't really have the
apps. Real poor decision.

Even though we do not sell our apps, we lease them to customers, we put all
source code on each customer system.

Yes, I know, we could then be asked, "where are your sources for the OS and such?"

--
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 12/15/22 02:24, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 10:56 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tnduv4$68n$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>>>>
>>>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>>>> to VMS?  Seriously.  Give me an example.
>>>
>>> Vulnerabilities in systemd.
>>
>> First of all, it is not necessary to run systemd, and there are
>> Linux distros that don't ship it.
>>
>> But if we're going to go there, now count vulnerabilities in
>> VMS...but apply the same microscope of research to VMS that we
>> do to Linux, to make it a fair comparison.
>>
>>> GPL being declared illegal by the supreme court.
>>
>> The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
>> never even been close to an outcome.  Moreover, how many
>> large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
>> If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
>> not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
>> mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
>> happen?  Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
>> existing caselaw?
>
> Nothing is guaranteed.  How many actually though Roe vs Wade would be
> reversed? The unexpected can happen.

This one really confuses me. What effect would declaring the GPL to be
invalid actually have? Mind you, I have never thought the GPL would
actually stand up in court if it faced a serious challenge.

bill

On 12/15/22 08:19, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tnei5b$31mru$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
>>> never even been close to an outcome. Moreover, how many
>>> large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
>>> If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
>>> not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
>>> mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
>>> happen? Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
>>> existing caselaw?
>>
>> Nothing is guaranteed. How many actually though Roe vs Wade would be reversed?
>> The unexpected can happen.
>
> Yup. All atoms in a rock could spontaneously go in the same
> direction, propelling it with great force. I suspect that is
> about as likely as the GPL being nullified by SCOTUS. People
> had been gunning for Roe for decades in contrast.
>
>>> [snip]
>>> Sorry, but I'd wager a year's salary that this is how most
>>> purchasing agents would see the matter. It is NOT making the
>>> case for VMS. Folks who want to see VMS succeed need to do
>>> better to make the case for it.
>>
>> If a purchasing agent is making IT decisions, then perhaps the customer is
>> already screwed.
>
> Someone in IT is going to be asking these questions, and if they
> are not, then they are not doing their job. It's really that
> simple.
>
>> If VMS proviodes the best solution/environment for a particular task, and it is
>> not chosen, isn't that also taking a risk?
>
> Again, you guys don't seem to get it. This question is
> predicated on the assumption that there is a "particular task"
> for which VMS provides the best solution/environment. Yet, no
> one seems to be able to articulate what that would be, or, more
> importantly, why.

Except Dave who thinks using VAX BASIC is the task. :-)

bill

On 12/15/2022 2:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 08:19, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tnei5b$31mru$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
>>>> never even been close to an outcome. Moreover, how many
>>>> large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
>>>> If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
>>>> not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
>>>> mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
>>>> happen? Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
>>>> existing caselaw?
>>>
>>> Nothing is guaranteed. How many actually though Roe vs Wade would be reversed?
>>> The unexpected can happen.
>>
>> Yup. All atoms in a rock could spontaneously go in the same
>> direction, propelling it with great force. I suspect that is
>> about as likely as the GPL being nullified by SCOTUS. People
>> had been gunning for Roe for decades in contrast.
>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Sorry, but I'd wager a year's salary that this is how most
>>>> purchasing agents would see the matter. It is NOT making the
>>>> case for VMS. Folks who want to see VMS succeed need to do
>>>> better to make the case for it.
>>>
>>> If a purchasing agent is making IT decisions, then perhaps the customer is
>>> already screwed.
>>
>> Someone in IT is going to be asking these questions, and if they
>> are not, then they are not doing their job. It's really that
>> simple.
>>
>>> If VMS proviodes the best solution/environment for a particular task, and it is
>>> not chosen, isn't that also taking a risk?
>>
>> Again, you guys don't seem to get it. This question is
>> predicated on the assumption that there is a "particular task"
>> for which VMS provides the best solution/environment. Yet, no
>> one seems to be able to articulate what that would be, or, more
>> importantly, why.
>
> Except Dave who thinks using VAX BASIC is the task. :-)

Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?

--
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 12/15/2022 3:28 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does
> exactly what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider
> pitching it, huh?
>
In your case, you sell a solution. It can be seen as an appliance or
another VM you run in your virtualized environment.
If other systems in the company can interact (get/send data to it) with
it and it integrates with the monitoring systems of the company, nobody
needs to know that VMS is behind the scene. Of course it needs to pass
all the security tests that any appliance must pass.

You'll maintain this "appliance". Your customer will not have to
interact with the OS (do you interact with the OS of your switches ou
routers ?)

Your customer won't even know that VSI exists.
Actually, it was the same 25+ years ago with some third party software
on VAX/AXP. Digital did not know the customers and had a very biased
view of the installed base.

On 12/14/2022 10:56 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tnduv4$68n$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>>>
>>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>>> to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.
>>
>> Vulnerabilities in systemd.
>
> First of all, it is not necessary to run systemd, and there are
> Linux distros that don't ship it.
>
> But if we're going to go there, now count vulnerabilities in
> VMS...but apply the same microscope of research to VMS that we
> do to Linux, to make it a fair comparison.

Nobody knows what that would reveal.

But it does not change the fact that there is a risk with
systemd.

And the topic was risk not vulnerability counts.

>> GPL being declared illegal by the supreme court.
>
> The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
> never even been close to an outcome. Moreover, how many
> large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
> If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
> not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
> mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
> happen? Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
> existing caselaw?

It is a risk greater than zero.

You were the one that claimed a risk greater than zero
was a problem.

It is not likely that GPL would be declared illegal. And
if it did happen then it is not likely that a solution
like a new license would not be found. So it is a very
small risk.

Everybody using Linux lives with that risk. No action
considered necessary.

>> VMS is not under GPL.
>
> No, it's not. What licenses _does_ it fall under?

VMS is sold under a commercial license.

> I keep
> hearing something about Oracle; suppose they try and sue VSI to
> enforce some sort of rights?

AFAIK there is nothing from Oracle in VMS.

> If we're talking nightmare
> license scenarios, that seems more likely than the GPL being
> nullified in US courts.

I have a different opinion.

>> VMS and Linux are different. There must be thousands/millions of
>> things that could go wrong for VMS without impacting Linux
>> and thousands/millions of things that could go wrong for Linux
>> without impacting VMS.
>
> Yes, they are different. But if "systemd and the GPL" are the
> best examples of risks people can come up with for Linux, it's
> reinforcing my thesis that choosing Linux is a lot less risky
> than choosing VMS.
>
> I contend that the number of risks for VMS is much greater than
> the number for Linux; they're not even within the same order of
> magnitude.

Since you yesterday was not even aware that there were risks
for Linux, then your opinion on that matter does not
carry much weight.

Arne

On 12/15/2022 2:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> This one really confuses me.  What effect would declaring the GPL to be
> invalid actually have?

That is a question for a lawyer.

But as a non-lawyer I would say that if anyone got some
software under GPL license and GPL was declared invalid
then that person did not have a valid license for the
software and would have to stop using it or risk being
charged with copyright infringement.

And a lot of stuff are under GPL: Linux, MySQL, GCC,
WordPress etc..

>   Mind you, I have never thought the GPL would
> actually stand up in court if it faced a serious challenge.

25 years ago all businesses hated GPL.

Today most business love if not GPL then at least GPL software.

If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.

Arne

On 12/15/2022 4:46 AM, JKB wrote:
> Le 15-12-2022, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> a écrit :
>> On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>>>
>>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>>> to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.
>>
>> Vulnerabilities in systemd.
>
> You can use SysV init.
>
> In linux kernel (and glibc), you can find a lot of bugs due to null
> pointers or buffer overflows. In my case, I have replaced all Linux
> servers by NetBSD systems.

Linux's biggest advantage is the support and backing. There is
enough money and people to do anything. Do they need to
add 5 million lines of code next year to match something
Windows has, then it will be done.

But in some ways it may also be Linux'es biggest
disadvantage. Millions of lines of code do get added.

Some may prefer something evolving slower and being
more stable - and live with the downside of less
functionality.

You chose NetBSD.

But with a significant facelift, then maybe VMS could
have been an option.

(facelift = adding a bunch of real must-haves not
a gazillion nice-to-haves)

Arne

Le 16-12-2022, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> a écrit :
> On 12/15/2022 4:46 AM, JKB wrote:
>> Le 15-12-2022, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> a écrit :
>>> On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>>> Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>>>>
>>>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>>>> to VMS? Seriously. Give me an example.
>>>
>>> Vulnerabilities in systemd.
>>
>> You can use SysV init.
>>
>> In linux kernel (and glibc), you can find a lot of bugs due to null
>> pointers or buffer overflows. In my case, I have replaced all Linux
>> servers by NetBSD systems.
>
> Linux's biggest advantage is the support and backing. There is
> enough money and people to do anything. Do they need to
> add 5 million lines of code next year to match something
> Windows has, then it will be done.
>
> But in some ways it may also be Linux'es biggest
> disadvantage. Millions of lines of code do get added.
>
> Some may prefer something evolving slower and being
> more stable - and live with the downside of less
> functionality.
>
> You chose NetBSD.

Only to replace Linux. My ES40 runs OVMS 8.4.

--
Si votre demande me parvient en code 29, je vous titiouillerai volontiers
une réponse.

On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/15/2022 2:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> This one really confuses me.  What effect would declaring the GPL to be
>> invalid actually have?
>
> That is a question for a lawyer.
>
> But as a non-lawyer I would say that if anyone got some
> software under GPL license and GPL was declared invalid
> then that person did not have a valid license for the
> software and would have to stop using it or risk being
> charged with copyright infringement.

I expect the fact that it was made freely available on a very wide scale
would make that unlikely.

>
> And a lot of stuff are under GPL: Linux, MySQL, GCC,
> WordPress etc..
>
>>               Mind you, I have never thought the GPL would
>> actually stand up in court if it faced a serious challenge.
>
> 25 years ago all businesses hated GPL.
>
> Today most business love if not GPL then at least GPL software.
>
> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.

Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.

Remember, the whole thing began when an idiot tried to retroactively
license code he put in the public domain.

bill

On 12/16/2022 9:40 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/15/2022 2:39 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> This one really confuses me.  What effect would declaring the GPL to be
>>> invalid actually have?
>>
>> That is a question for a lawyer.
>>
>> But as a non-lawyer I would say that if anyone got some
>> software under GPL license and GPL was declared invalid
>> then that person did not have a valid license for the
>> software and would have to stop using it or risk being
>> charged with copyright infringement.
>
> I expect the fact that it was made freely available on a very wide scale
> would make that unlikely.
>
>> And a lot of stuff are under GPL: Linux, MySQL, GCC,
>> WordPress etc..
>>
>>>               Mind you, I have never thought the GPL would
>>> actually stand up in court if it faced a serious challenge.
>>
>> 25 years ago all businesses hated GPL.
>>
>> Today most business love if not GPL then at least GPL software.
>>
>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>
> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.

I am very skeptical about that.

Copyright law and copyright decisions is very far from
a philosophy of "available => legal to use". One need
to have a license. And if someone make a deliberate
choice to make code available under GPL, then it is
obviously their intention to make it available under
GPL not public domain (let us ignore the fact that
public domain has some potential legal issues itself
in the US). Code cannot by magic become available under
other conditions than what the author intended.

Arne

In article <tng03p$35io8$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 12/15/2022 2:42 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>[snip]
>> Except Dave who thinks using VAX BASIC is the task. :-)
>
>Yeah, if you got over 40 years of development of a product that does exactly
>what it's intended to do, you should just seriously consider pitching it, huh?

If you can only run it on a system that may not exist in 5
years, then yes.

- Dan C.