I missed this "Webinar" on Tuesday last week.
Anyone seen a recording?
Or was anyone joining online?

Jan-Erik.

On 2023-01-18, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
> I missed this "Webinar" on Tuesday last week.
> Anyone seen a recording?
> Or was anyone joining online?
>
> Jan-Erik.

IIRC, on the announcement, they said if you registered, they would
send you a link to the recording if it wasn't convenient for you
to join live, so they are clearly planning to make a recording available.

Simon.

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

Den 2023-01-18 kl. 14:08, skrev Simon Clubley:
> On 2023-01-18, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>> I missed this "Webinar" on Tuesday last week.
>> Anyone seen a recording?
>> Or was anyone joining online?
>>
>> Jan-Erik.
>
> IIRC, on the announcement, they said if you registered, they would
> send you a link to the recording if it wasn't convenient for you
> to join live, so they are clearly planning to make a recording available.
>
> Simon.
>

OK. I had registered but missed it.
The Zoom link in the invite is dead today (as expected).
I have not got any other information.
The event is not linked from the home page webinar page.

We'll see... :-)

Jan-Erik.

On 1/18/2023 8:37 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2023-01-18 kl. 14:08, skrev Simon Clubley:
>> On 2023-01-18, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>>> I missed this "Webinar" on Tuesday last week.
>>> Anyone seen a recording?
>>> Or was anyone joining online?
>>>
>>> Jan-Erik.
>>
>> IIRC, on the announcement, they said if you registered, they would
>> send you a link to the recording if it wasn't convenient for you
>> to join live, so they are clearly planning to make a recording available.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> OK. I had registered but missed it.
> The Zoom link in the invite is dead today (as expected).
> I have not got any other information.
> The event is not linked from the home page webinar page.
>
> We'll see... :-)
>
> Jan-Erik.

I was wondering the same thing. I checked the YouTube channel but nothing new there since last March's update. Hopefully they will post one soon.

John H. Reinhardt

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 3:19:31 PM UTC, John H Reinhardt wrote:
> On 1/18/2023 8:37 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> > Den 2023-01-18 kl. 14:08, skrev Simon Clubley:
> >> On 2023-01-18, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik....@telia.com> wrote:
> >>> I missed this "Webinar" on Tuesday last week.
> >>> Anyone seen a recording?
> >>> Or was anyone joining online?
> >>>
> >>> Jan-Erik.
> >>
> >> IIRC, on the announcement, they said if you registered, they would
> >> send you a link to the recording if it wasn't convenient for you
> >> to join live, so they are clearly planning to make a recording available.
> >>
> >> Simon.
> >>
> >
> > OK. I had registered but missed it.
> > The Zoom link in the invite is dead today (as expected).
> > I have not got any other information.
> > The event is not linked from the home page webinar page.
> >
> > We'll see... :-)
> >
> > Jan-Erik.
> I was wondering the same thing. I checked the YouTube channel but nothing new there since last March's update. Hopefully they will post one soon.
>
> John H. Reinhardt

webinar is now available https://vmssoftware.com/about/webinars/

On 2023-01-24, Ian Miller <gxys@uk2.net> wrote:
>
> webinar is now available https://vmssoftware.com/about/webinars/

Some interesting stuff in the attached PDF at:

https://vmssoftware.com/docs/2022_accomplishments_webinar_20230110.pdf

|Any news on an Ada compiler for OpenVMS x86?
| |We have no plans to provide an Ada compiler due to insufficient customer
|demand.

Another year to wait for RDB (Q1, 2024).

There are no longer any current plans for bare metal support:

|Need specs for an x86 system to run VMS directly without a hypervisor.
| |We have currently allocated all R&D resources to the development of OpenVMS
|running on virtualized environments to meet most customer needs and
|requirements. There are no specific plans to support bare metal, but customer
|requests will be carefully considered. Please contact us with your specific needs.

Efforts to expand the VMS userbase have been abandoned:

|Are there any sales efforts for OpenVMS to take back industry market share
|from other operating systems that later "replaced" VMS? Or bid on new
|industrial projects that would run on VMS?
| |Our primary objective is to provide current OpenVMS users with the
|opportunity to protect their investments in OpenVMS-based applications
|without a technical deadline.

In reality, I suppose this is just confirming what everyone in their
heart really knew (even if some were not willing to admit it. :-))

This one got my attention big time. I thought this was a current project:

|What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
| |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.

Huh ?

Simon.

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

On 1/24/2023 1:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-01-24, Ian Miller <gxys@uk2.net> wrote:
>>
>> webinar is now available https://vmssoftware.com/about/webinars/
>
> Some interesting stuff in the attached PDF at:
>
> https://vmssoftware.com/docs/2022_accomplishments_webinar_20230110.pdf
>
> |Any news on an Ada compiler for OpenVMS x86?
> |
> |We have no plans to provide an Ada compiler due to insufficient customer
> |demand.
>
> Another year to wait for RDB (Q1, 2024).
>
> There are no longer any current plans for bare metal support:

Phillip will be howling at the moon ...

> |Need specs for an x86 system to run VMS directly without a hypervisor.
> |
> |We have currently allocated all R&D resources to the development of OpenVMS
> |running on virtualized environments to meet most customer needs and
> |requirements. There are no specific plans to support bare metal, but customer
> |requests will be carefully considered. Please contact us with your specific needs.
>
> Efforts to expand the VMS userbase have been abandoned:

Well, that's not so clear. We've all read about how so many are now using VM
environments.

VM environments is not going to satisfy some requirements. If I'm running a
nuclear power station, I would not choose (or allow) a VM environment for
critical stuff.

> |Are there any sales efforts for OpenVMS to take back industry market share
> |from other operating systems that later "replaced" VMS? Or bid on new
> |industrial projects that would run on VMS?
> |
> |Our primary objective is to provide current OpenVMS users with the
> |opportunity to protect their investments in OpenVMS-based applications
> |without a technical deadline.
>
> In reality, I suppose this is just confirming what everyone in their
> heart really knew (even if some were not willing to admit it. :-))

Well, yeah, to some extent.

> This one got my attention big time. I thought this was a current project:
>
> |What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
> |
> |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.

With some retiring, and possibly others leaving, perhaps VSI just isn't making
enough money for all we'd wish they would do. I too thought they had promised this.

Now I wonder when they will announce the unavailability of a Basic compiler?

--
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

In article <tqpg77$9pjt$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> Efforts to expand the VMS userbase have been abandoned:
>
>Well, that's not so clear. We've all read about how so many are now using VM
>environments.
>
>VM environments is not going to satisfy some requirements. If I'm running a
>nuclear power station, I would not choose (or allow) a VM environment for
>critical stuff.

I think it's worse than that: they're not just talking
about bare metal, but about new VMS users on any platform.
That is, they are saying they will target existing, legacy
customers on hypervisors but aren't even trying to expand
to new customers of any sort at this time.

That's too bad.

- Dan C.

On 1/24/23 2:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:

> Now I wonder when they will announce the unavailability of a Basic
> compiler?

It's disappeared from the roadmap and during the webinar Vadim Ilves
(head of R & D) said maybe this year in a tone of voice that implied
probably not this year. Fortran, COBOL, and Pascal will definitely be
before it.

On 1/24/23 12:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:

> |What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
> |
> |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.

That is bizarre. It's already _been_ ported for Integrity and has been
available since 10 December 2021 as a download from the VSI portal.
It's hard to imagine what an x86 build would require that's different
from an IA64 build. I wonder if Oracle told them no Rdb unless they
quash the port of PostgreSQL to OpenVMS x86.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 8:48:42 PM UTC, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 1/24/2023 1:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2023-01-24, Ian Miller <gx...@uk2.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> webinar is now available https://vmssoftware.com/about/webinars/
> >
> > Some interesting stuff in the attached PDF at:
> >
> > https://vmssoftware.com/docs/2022_accomplishments_webinar_20230110.pdf
> >
> > |Any news on an Ada compiler for OpenVMS x86?
> > |
> > |We have no plans to provide an Ada compiler due to insufficient customer
> > |demand.
> >
> > Another year to wait for RDB (Q1, 2024).
> >
> > There are no longer any current plans for bare metal support:
> Phillip will be howling at the moon ...
> > |Need specs for an x86 system to run VMS directly without a hypervisor.
> > |
> > |We have currently allocated all R&D resources to the development of OpenVMS
> > |running on virtualized environments to meet most customer needs and
> > |requirements. There are no specific plans to support bare metal, but customer
> > |requests will be carefully considered. Please contact us with your specific needs.
> >
> > Efforts to expand the VMS userbase have been abandoned:
> Well, that's not so clear. We've all read about how so many are now using VM
> environments.
>
> VM environments is not going to satisfy some requirements. If I'm running a
> nuclear power station, I would not choose (or allow) a VM environment for
> critical stuff.
> > |Are there any sales efforts for OpenVMS to take back industry market share
> > |from other operating systems that later "replaced" VMS? Or bid on new
> > |industrial projects that would run on VMS?
> > |
> > |Our primary objective is to provide current OpenVMS users with the
> > |opportunity to protect their investments in OpenVMS-based applications
> > |without a technical deadline.
> >
> > In reality, I suppose this is just confirming what everyone in their
> > heart really knew (even if some were not willing to admit it. :-))
> Well, yeah, to some extent.
> > This one got my attention big time. I thought this was a current project:
> >
> > |What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
> > |
> > |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.
> With some retiring, and possibly others leaving, perhaps VSI just isn't making
> enough money for all we'd wish they would do. I too thought they had promised this.
>
> Now I wonder when they will announce the unavailability of a Basic compiler?
>
>
> --
> David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
> DFE Ultralights, Inc.
> 170 Grimplin Road
> Vanderbilt, PA 15486

"Is native BASIC compiler expected in 2023? The roadmap web page does not
explicitly mention it.
We expect to provide BASIC during 2023."

On 2023-01-24, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/24/23 12:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>
>> |What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
>> |
>> |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.
>
> That is bizarre. It's already _been_ ported for Integrity and has been
> available since 10 December 2021 as a download from the VSI portal.
> It's hard to imagine what an x86 build would require that's different
> from an IA64 build. I wonder if Oracle told them no Rdb unless they
> quash the port of PostgreSQL to OpenVMS x86.
>

It does seem strange in light of previous comments and work in this area.
I wonder if there is some misunderstanding going on.

_If_ you are correct however, I wonder if there's anything else VSI have
had to agree not to port to x86-64 in order to get Rdb on x86-64 VMS ?

BTW, did VSI provide the source code changes to get PostgreSQL running
on Itanium ?

If so, I wonder if a build attempt on x86-64 would work anyway.

Simon.

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

On 1/24/2023 6:22 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 1/24/23 2:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> Now I wonder when they will announce the unavailability of a Basic
>> compiler?
>
> It's disappeared from the roadmap and during the webinar Vadim Ilves
> (head of R & D) said maybe this year in a tone of voice that implied
> probably not this year.

The PDF says:

<quote>
Is native BASIC compiler expected in 2023? The roadmap web page does not
explicitly mention it.
We expect to provide BASIC during 2023.
</quote>

I did not listen to the webinar, so I do not know the tone it was said.

Arne

On 1/25/23 10:40 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/24/2023 6:22 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> On 1/24/23 2:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> Now I wonder when they will announce the unavailability of a Basic
>>> compiler?
>>
>> It's disappeared from the roadmap and during the webinar Vadim Ilves
>> (head of R & D) said maybe this year in a tone of voice that implied
>> probably not this year.
>
> The PDF says:
>
> <quote>
> Is native BASIC compiler expected in 2023? The roadmap web page does not
> explicitly mention it.
> We expect to provide BASIC during 2023.
> </quote>
>
> I did not listen to the webinar, so I do not know the tone it was said.

Starting at 19:38 in the webinar:

"Our goal is to have all compilers except for BASIC by the end of this
year. I can't make any promises regarding BASIC...."

On 1/25/2023 11:40 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/24/2023 6:22 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> On 1/24/23 2:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> Now I wonder when they will announce the unavailability of a Basic
>>> compiler?
>>
>> It's disappeared from the roadmap and during the webinar Vadim Ilves
>> (head of R & D) said maybe this year in a tone of voice that implied
>> probably not this year.
>
> The PDF says:
>
> <quote>
> Is native BASIC compiler expected in 2023? The roadmap web page does not
> explicitly mention it.
> We expect to provide BASIC during 2023.
> </quote>
>
> I did not listen to the webinar, so I do not know the tone it was said.

But I strongly suspect that they must have hit some
technical issues.

It is late. And there are indications that it will be the last
language to get native compilers.

Given a lot of VMS users are using Basic, then I don't think
it is being down prioritized for business reasons. That does not
make sense.

So I suspect technical issues. LLVM supports C, C++ and
Fortran out of the box, so no language problem with them.
Supposedly there exist a Delphi/FPC frontend as well, so VMS Pascal
should be doable as well even though it differs quite a bit.
VMS Cobol apparently do not cause problems. But VMS Basic
is a pretty advanced language and it is very different from
other Basic dialects so any previous LLVM work like for FBC
is probably useless.

Arne

On 1/24/2023 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 1/24/23 12:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> |What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
>> |
>> |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.
>
> That is bizarre.  It's already _been_ ported for Integrity and has been
> available since 10 December 2021 as a download from the VSI portal.
> It's hard to imagine what an x86 build would require that's different
> from an IA64 build.

PostgreSQL Client (libpq) is available for both Alpha and Itanium:
https://vmssoftware.com/products/libpq/

There has been a lot of talk about PostgreSQL server for VMS and
the associated changes to IO. But I have not seen a formal
announcement of a finished product being available.

>   I wonder if Oracle told them no Rdb unless they
> quash the port of PostgreSQL to OpenVMS x86.

I don't see much point for Oracle to do so.

PostgreSQL is not "Rdb compatible" in any way.

The two groups:
- existing Rdb users that will migrate to PostgreSQL on VMS
if it exist but stay on Rdb if it does not exist
- new users that will pick PostgreSQL on VMS if it exist
and Rdb if it does not exist
must be extremely small.

Arne

On 1/25/2023 11:43 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 1/25/23 10:40 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/24/2023 6:22 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> On 1/24/23 2:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> Now I wonder when they will announce the unavailability of a Basic
>>>> compiler?
>>>
>>> It's disappeared from the roadmap and during the webinar Vadim Ilves
>>> (head of R & D) said maybe this year in a tone of voice that implied
>>> probably not this year.
>>
>> The PDF says:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Is native BASIC compiler expected in 2023? The roadmap web page does
>> not explicitly mention it.
>> We expect to provide BASIC during 2023.
>> </quote>
>>
>> I did not listen to the webinar, so I do not know the tone it was said.
>
>
> Starting at 19:38 in the webinar:
>
> "Our goal is to have all compilers except for BASIC by the end of this
> year.  I can't make any promises regarding BASIC...."

The PDF seems to have been "polished" then.

Arne

On 2023-01-25, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> Given a lot of VMS users are using Basic, then I don't think
> it is being down prioritized for business reasons. That does not
> make sense.
>

John has mentioned that he's hit problems due to some unique requirement
in DEC Basic. I wonder if the problems were more serious than he
initially realised ?

Simon.

PS: I wonder what they finally ended up doing about TECO ? :-)

PPS: On a more serious note, I wonder how the Rdb users feel about
Rdb not been available for x86-64 for at least another year ?

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

On 1/24/2023 2:33 PM, John Dallman wrote:
> In article <tqp7bm$871q$1@dont-email.me>,
> clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:
>> There are no longer any current plans for bare metal support:
>
> That is not surprising. I'm having to provide comprehensive
> justifications for running /any/ server OS on bare metal. This applies
> even where it's much more efficient (because of natural code segment
> sharing when running many copies of a large application for testing).
>
> The current fashion among corporate sysadmins is "VMWare for everything."
> It gives them more of a feeling of power, because they expect they can
> bluff their way out of hard work requested by users or manager who don't
> understand virtualisation.

I think the general landscape is a bit broader:
* VM's on VMWare (or in some cases Hyper-V) in own data center
* k8s containers managed by OpenShift or Tanzu in own data center
* VM's in public cloud
* k8s containers in public cloud

But the traditional model with no VM/container at all is
certainly getting very rare.

VM's/containers are way more flexible. And when servers
comes with like 32c64t per socket then just running a single
server on the hardware makes little sense.

VMS will not support k8s containers the next 10 years - probably
never, so VM's is the obvious choice.

And it avoids the problem of the crazy huge diversity in
x86-64 hardware.

The two biggest groups of VMS users in the coming years will be:
- those that like VM's because it fits nicely into the
corporate infrastructure strategy
- those that can live with VM's because it really doesn't
matter

If there are some users that cannot live with VM's, then they
should tell VSI. Then VSI will hopefully put one or two
physical machines on the supported list.

But no reason to expect VSI to spend money on this until
actually customers ask for it.

Arne

On 1/25/2023 1:14 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> PPS: On a more serious note, I wonder how the Rdb users feel about
> Rdb not been available for x86-64 for at least another year ?

Probably a bit impatient.

But the reality is that there are lots of things not ready yet.

The most problematic thing is probably the missing native
compilers.

I believe the migrations will not really take off until they
are available. Cross compilers on Itanium is not enough
(the VMS tradition is to compile on the target, relying
on Itanium a dead platform is risky, some VMS shops are still
on Alpha so do not even have Itanium).

Then those relying on Rdb will also need to
wait for that becoming available..

Things take time.

My crystal ball says that it will at least be late 2025
until VMS x86-64 passes 50% of VMS mark.

Arne

On 1/25/23 11:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/24/2023 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> On 1/24/23 12:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> |What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
>>> |
>>> |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.
>>
>> That is bizarre.  It's already _been_ ported for Integrity and has been
>> available since 10 December 2021 as a download from the VSI portal.
>> It's hard to imagine what an x86 build would require that's different
>> from an IA64 build.
>
> PostgreSQL Client (libpq) is available for both Alpha and Itanium:
>    https://vmssoftware.com/products/libpq/
>
> There has been a lot of talk about PostgreSQL server for VMS and
> the associated changes to IO. But I have not seen a formal
> announcement of a finished product being available.

The kit name is VSI-I64VMS-POSTGRESQL-V1303--1, so appears not just to
be libpq. The description says, "VSI Shared Stream I/O Modules and VSI
POSTGRESQL Version 13.3-1 for VSI OpenVMS I64 Version 8.4-2L3 and
higher. SSIO_MODULES.ZIP and Release Notes are included in the ZIP file.
* THIS IS A FIELD TEST KIT RELEASE ONLY! *." And appears to be only
available with a support contract.

Maybe the field test revealed more problems than they have time to look
into right now. Or maybe SSIO is even more difficult to get right than
they thought it was.

On 1/25/2023 2:18 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 1/25/23 11:03 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/24/2023 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> On 1/24/23 12:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> |What position does PostgreSQL have on the list of opensource software?
>>>> |
>>>> |We have no plans to port PostgreSQL to OpenVMS.
>>>
>>> That is bizarre.  It's already _been_ ported for Integrity and has been
>>> available since 10 December 2021 as a download from the VSI portal.
>>> It's hard to imagine what an x86 build would require that's different
>>> from an IA64 build.
>>
>> PostgreSQL Client (libpq) is available for both Alpha and Itanium:
>>     https://vmssoftware.com/products/libpq/
>>
>> There has been a lot of talk about PostgreSQL server for VMS and
>> the associated changes to IO. But I have not seen a formal
>> announcement of a finished product being available.
>
> The kit name is VSI-I64VMS-POSTGRESQL-V1303--1, so appears not just to
> be libpq.

That is a different kit from the LIBPQ kit above.

> The description says, "VSI Shared Stream I/O Modules and VSI
> POSTGRESQL Version 13.3-1 for VSI OpenVMS I64 Version 8.4-2L3 and
> higher. SSIO_MODULES.ZIP and Release Notes are included in the ZIP file.
> * THIS IS A FIELD TEST KIT RELEASE ONLY! *."  And appears to be only
> available with a support contract.

Field test I know.

:-)

> Maybe the field test revealed more problems than they have time to look
> into right now.  Or maybe SSIO is even more difficult to get right than
> they thought it was.

Priorities.

Getting 9.x and the native compilers out is way more important.

And even for the database area then helping the existing
VMS Oracle client customers moving to SQLRelay is probably more
important than a new database.

Arne

On 1/24/2023 1:17 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-01-24, Ian Miller <gxys@uk2.net> wrote:
> Efforts to expand the VMS userbase have been abandoned:
>
> |Are there any sales efforts for OpenVMS to take back industry market share
> |from other operating systems that later "replaced" VMS? Or bid on new
> |industrial projects that would run on VMS?
> |
> |Our primary objective is to provide current OpenVMS users with the
> |opportunity to protect their investments in OpenVMS-based applications
> |without a technical deadline.
>
> In reality, I suppose this is just confirming what everyone in their
> heart really knew (even if some were not willing to admit it. :-))

????

Hasn't it been informally known for a decade and formally known
for years that VSI focus was to get the existing VMS customers
from Alpha and Itanium to x86-64 and that new customers are
future after that?

So I don't see anything being abandoned.

9.2 is out, but they are still missing some relevant products
like native compilers, Rdb etc.. Hopefully all these will show
up this year and early next year.

When these are available then the existing customers will
need to migrate. It will take many years.

And there are some things VSI will need to get done (incl. a lot
in compiler, library, tooling and server products) before
chasing new customers make sense.

Ask them again in 2028 and they may have a different answer.

Arne

On 1/25/2023 12:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 1/24/2023 6:27 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>                       I wonder if Oracle told them no Rdb unless they
>> quash the port of PostgreSQL to OpenVMS x86.
>
> I don't see much point for Oracle to do so.
>
> PostgreSQL is not "Rdb compatible" in any way.

To be more a little more specific:

C module, C SQL services API, C OCI API, Pascal embedded SQL,
Pascal module, Cobol module, Basic embedded SQL and Basic module
will be a complete API change - rewrite to LIBPQ.

C embedded SQL and Cobol embedded SQL should be relative easy
to port (fix connection, maybe something with error handling
and maybe some SQL changes). Cobol assumes that the ESQL
open source thing get ported, but VSI could do that.

Java JDBC, Java JPA, Python DB API and PHP PDO should be
easy to port (mostly changing config).

So some things will be compatible.

But the first category is way bigger than the last
category on VMS.

Arne

On Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 11:53:29 AM UTC-8, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> Hasn't it been informally known for a decade and formally known
> for years that VSI focus was to get the existing VMS customers
> from Alpha and Itanium to x86-64 and that new customers are
> future after that?

For some time, VSI made bold public statements about VMS being a competitive replacement for other platforms, usually based on some 1980s-era marketing language around being more secure and stable

It would seem they are now being more realistic, or at least postponing that talk until they're finished bringing x86-64 to at least early-2000s Alpha parity

> Ask them again in 2028 and they may have a different answer.

The amount of technical debt to be completed in order to expand their market share will only grow in the intervening years between now and 2028