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

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <49DD40D5.3F95722D at spam.comcast.net>,
	David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
> 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?

I'm not arguing for any standard.  I am merely pointing out that if you
make VMS the standard, then any OS other than VMS is going to be rather
deficient because VMS is VMS and every other OS is not.  That's kind of
like saying the standard for good literature is what is written in
english.  By that standard ther eis no good german or french literature.
I think the world would disagree.  And, as can be seen by example, the
industry has rejected VMS as a standard for which all computing must
strive.

> 
> 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 do you define it?  Market share?   Annual profits?  Number of systems?
Number of Users?  Industry familiarity?  Where exactly does VMS exceed
Unix (or just about any other major OS today) other than in meeting the VMS
standard?

> 
>> 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?

Why would I?  Like other Unix users I don't see a need for most of this
stuff so why invest time and effort delivering a product no one, appaerntly,
need and no one wants.  Make more profit selling refrigerators to eskimos.

> 
>> >
>> > 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.

If you don't do it the wya Unix does it then is isn't a Unix compatable
fork() and accomplishes nothing.  A lot of the OpenSource programs that
people keep asking for on VMS rely heavily on fork() doing exactly what
it does on Unix.  If they didn't then VMS SPAWN would accomplish the
task.

People need to come to grips with the idea that, from the viewpoint of
the IT industry, VMS is not better than Unix, it is only different.
People who need its functionality will continue to use it so long as
HP keeps it around.  People who don't need its unique functionality
will use other OSes.  Not just Unix.  zOS.  OS 2200.  Windows.  And
any of probably a dozen others.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>