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

[David J Dachtera]

"Richard B. Gilbert" wrote:
> 
> David J Dachtera wrote:
> > 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
> 
> What would you do with fork() in VMS if you had it? 

Port more UN*X software to VMS.

> If you want it, why not just run Unix?

See the earlier post about needed features lacking in UN*X.

D.J.D.