[Info-vax] Anyone interested in another public access system

[David J Dachtera]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
> In article <49D6D457.A96B7D25 at spam.comcast.net>,
>         David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
> > [snip]
> > Need I go on?
> 
> No, when your measure of modern computing is whatever is VMS-style
> I guess anything that isn't VMS is deficient. 

What would you prefer as a "gold standard" against which to measure?

Windows?

(MS-)DOS?

CP/M?

TRSDOS?

> So, how much longer
> than Unix is VMS going to be around?  Forgetting all measures except
> delivering what the custome needs and wants, which is mnore successful?

It Depends. Define "success".

> How many times do you need to be told that Unix is adaptable enough that
> pretty much any of the things you mentioned could have been (and still
> could be) added except that Unix users don't see them as something to
> be bothered about.

Probably until they actually come about. Are you volunteering?

> >
> > I've no way to know whether there is any hope of ever getting any new
> > blood in OpenVMS engineering, but I'm hoping someone, somewhere, perhaps
> > in VMS V10.0-1 will solve the "fork()" problem and in doing so solve
> > many of the incompatibilities between UN*X and VMS, perhaps even merge
> > UN*X and VMS into something that brings the best of both worlds to EDP.
> 
> Personally, I don't think the fork() problem will ever be solved.  I
> think there is just too much difference at a very low level to make it
> possible.

Oh, I'm sure it could be done, just not in the ways one might
traditionally think from either a UN*X or VMS point of view.

D.J.D.