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

[David J Dachtera]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
> 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. 

...and, of course, the counter-argument could be made about <mumble>
features not being available in non-<mumble>.

> That's kind of
> like saying the standard for good literature is what is written in
> english. 

Not a valid comparison. It might be for programming language vs.
programming language, but not o.s. vs. o.s.

A better comparison might be two-seater vs. a mini-bus or a ranch vs.
two-story home. Different feature sets underlying the upper-layers.

> 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.

Well, actually no, it hasn't. Over-generalization - invalid asssumption.
You can't reject what you've never known about. 

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marketing

> > [snip]
> > It Depends. Define "success".
> 
> How do you define it?  Market share?   Annual profits?  Number of systems?
> Number of Users?  Industry familiarity? 

Yes.

> Where exactly does VMS exceed
> Unix (or just about any other major OS today) other than in meeting the VMS
> standard?

Feature richness (VMS) vs. being feature-impoverished (UN*X, DOS,
Windows, etc.).

> >
> >> 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.

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marketing

Running joke about my brother-in-law (great b.s.-er): He could sell ice
cubes to an eskimo for the eskimo's last dollar, and the eskimo would
leave thanking him for it.

> >
> >> >
> >> > 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. 

It Depends. If looks like a fork, acts like a fork and provides the same
functionality as a fork, then its a _ _ _ _ (fill in the blank).

Why would the upper layer software care what happens "under the hood" of
SYS$FORK(), it is existed?

> 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.

Here again, the counter-argument is also true: UN*X is not better than
VMS(, DOS, Windows, etc.), only different.

Rather like comparing a wrench to channel-locks or a vise-grip: - its a
question of the right tool for the job.

D.J.D.