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

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <49E12BBD.ECB41CED at spam.comcast.net>,
	David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> 
>> In article <49DF7A1A.EB9E7656 at spam.comcast.net>,
>>         David J Dachtera <djesys.no at spam.comcast.net> writes:
>> > 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>.
>> 
>> Not having something that no one wants is not a shortcoming.
> 
> See below for the discussion of "no one wants".
> 
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> Why not?  You are using an irrelevant standard for comparison, just
>> like using language as a standard for literature using VMS as a
>> "standard" for what an OS provides is just plain silly. 
> 
> Well, if you want to REALLY get technical on that, translating The
> Qur'an from Arabic to any other language is considered to be a source
> loss of the scripture's true meaning.

That is a strictly religous purity argument.  Even the Christians dropped
that several centuries ago.

> 
> So, in some cases, yes - language IS considered to "define" literature
> at a fundamental level.

I read literature in three different languages.  I consider each to be of
value.  I don't have my Goethe translated before reading it.

> 
> But back to the point, no it iS *NOT* a valid comparison as regards VMS
> vs. alternatives any more than make-model is valid comparison of, for
> example, motorcycle vs. sedan, mini-van vs. tour bus, wood-frame house
> vs. a limestone castle, or the like. Who built it and/or design purpose
> is relevant to a discussion of the components used ot build it.
> 
> For another example, carpenters have little use for plumbing tools, and
> vice-versa, yet both consider their tool sets essential to their trade.
> A carpenter could go his whole career never knowing what a three-wheel
> pipe cutter is or even that such a tool exists, while plumber would very
> likely prefer to have one in his toolset, even if he/she can easily do
> without.

Ummm....  You do realize you are arguing in favor of haviong multiple
OSes and that each one is invaluable in its own niche?  SO, VMS may have
a use, but it is worthless (and like the "three-wheelpipe cutter" pretty
much unknown) in the Unix world.

> 
>> Actually,
>> there is a standard for what an OS should provide.  It's called POSIX.
>> Which OS come closer?
> 
> None. POSIX is modelled after commonly used features originating in UN*X
> and to some extent DOS/Windows in so far as the feature sets overlap,
> but is intended to be o.s. agnostic. That's why a standards set, and not
> o.s. architecture specification.
> 
>> >
>> > 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.
>> 
>> Actually, those are all equal comparisons.  I am quite certain that a
>> person who drives a "two-seater" does not consider it somehow defficient
>> cause it doesn't have the features of a mini-bus.  And, being the owner
>> and driver of a Mazda Miata and an MGB, I speak from experience.
> 
> Miata and MBG are both two-seaters. How many of the kids, aunts, uncles,
> cousins, etc. can you take in either one when heading out to the family
> holiday dinner, or whatever occasion may result in your being called
> upon to "haul" the family?

Congratulations!  you jsut won my argument for me.  I have no desire to
ever take "the kids, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc." anywhere with me.
My Miata and MGB can carry me, me and my wife, me and my golfclubs.
That is not only all I need, it is all I want.  To paraphrase an old
adage, "One man's shortcoming is another man's feature."

> 
> You may go your whole life never needing to do so ("you don't know that
> you need it"). 

On the contrary, I know that I don't need it.  What's more, I know that I
don't want it.

>                  However, should the need eventually arise, you may find
> your two-seater not quite up to the task, especially in inclement
> weather when you cannot resort to an illegal seating arrangement.

The nead will never arise.  Period.  I stopped being a taxi service quite
some time ago and I have no intention of ever becoming one again.  And,
the best solution is to see too it that I do not have the capability.
Works for me.

> 
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> Are you saying that the industry never knew about VMS? 
> 
> The above answers that question, but I'll spell it out for you, anyway:
> 
> "the industry"? Show me where I said that.

I said: "the industry has rejected VMS...."
You said: "You can't reject what you've never known about."


> 
> A large cross-section of "the industry"? Not THAT big an over-statement
> when substituted for the contextual "you've" in the foregoing.
> 
>> Boy are you
>> mistaken.  There was a time when the names VAX and VMS were guarenteed
>> proposal wins even when the competition won all the benchmarks.  And,
>> I also learned that through direct, first-person experience!!  There was
>> a time when VMS was as common in academia as Unix was.  That was definitely
>> the case when I got her at the University of Scranton.  And when I was
>> at West Point (which is much more a college campus than an Army base)
>> the Computer Science Departement was a VAX/VMS shop.  We had Unix on
>> the administrative side years before it started showing up on the academic
>> side.  No, the IT industry was well aware of VMS before it rejected it.
> 
> Well, this is *VERY* *IMPORTANT* to understand, so make no mistake about
> this:
> 
> "the industry" did not "reject" VMS. "the industry" was deliberately and
> intentionally mislead by HP and its predecessor(s). 

Semantics.  Their rejection may have been based on erroneous information
provided ny VMS's keepers, but the result is the same.

> 
> Most recently, HP manegement went out to the ISVs to "preach" IA64. Oh,
> yeah - they preached IA64, alright, but they preached UX on IA64, not
> VMS. The ISVs read that as "VMS is EOL". (Direct witness from two of the
> major healthcare ISVs on that one, so again, make no mistake. Search my
> posts from the last 12 months or so, and you can easily find which two
> vendors I refer to here.)

So, what your saying is VMS's keepers themselves have rejected VMS.
Given that fact, what would you expect the rest of the IT industry 
to do?

> 
> In my mind, that does not constitute "rejection". To me, that
> constitutes following what the ISVs perceived as the vendor's lead (how
> many times have we heard/read it said that "perception is reality"?).

OK, more semantics.  When one refuses to use an obviously superior
product in favor of an obviously inferior product to me, that means
they are rejecting the first infavor of the second.  But feel free
to use whatever terminology you want.  That's the wonder of English.
(Maybe that's why Moslems don't want the Koran translated?)

> 
>> >
>> > 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
>> 
>> Based on your answer above, why didn't you answer this one?
> 
> I did (Non-rhetorical answer!)
> 
>> 
>> >> 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.).
>> 
>> Back to that argument.  An OS is not "feature-impoverished" because it
>> doesn't offer features that its user base is not interested in. 
> 
> It depends.

Depends on what?  Or are you still arguing that I am somehow disadvantaged
with my two-seater cars?

> 
>> You
>> are aware of the history of Unix, aren't you? 
> 
> Painfully!
> 
>> Features are added all
>> the time.  Journaling File Systems, Software RAID, IPSEC, IPv6.  None
>> of this was in the original Unix.  But as the users decided they needed
>> it, it was added. 
> 
> Like it or else, we're becoming - or already are - users of UN*X. We
> needed RMS, DCL, Shared-Everything Clustering, Distributed Lock
> Management, etc. on VMS, and we still need them. We just learn to make
> do without because they're missing from UN*X.

DLM exists for Unix.  IBM released their code some time ago.  As for the
rest, you are one person.  When the number of people who want RMS, DCL and
Shared-Everything Clustering reaches some critical mass then, like the
reatures I mentioned above, they will be added to Unix,  But unless you
are willing to add them, it is going to take more than a couple of people
crying about it before someone who doesn't have a need is going to put
forth the effort needed to implement them.

> 
> Because we can make do without something does not mean we don't need it,
> it just means we're worthy of our salary! (...and then some!)

And it means you are in the minority.  Just because you need something
doesn't mean everybody else does.  You need a minivan, I neither need
one nor want one.  So, I wouldn't care if none of the car makers ever
made one.  There were no mini-vans when I was child.  There were vans.
BUt they were not targeted at families.  When the need reached a marketable
critical mass the car manufacturers took what they had and re-designed it
into the mini-van and sold it to families.  Your features above are the
same.  

> 
>> And should the users ever decide they really need
>> some of the stuff that VMS has, it, too, will be added.  But not having
>> capabilities no one wants is not a shortcoming.
>> 
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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
>> 
>> What does that have to do with anything? 
> 
> See the above.
> 
>> Are you saying we should market
>> features no one wants
> 
> Correction: "no one" knows that they need "it" 

You are still assuming everyone needs something because you do. Real
bad assumption.

>                                                 (to avoid the tons of
> kludges they may have already developed or are still tryting to perfact
> to make up for, for example, the lack of RMS, the lack of shared disk
> resoirces with distributed lock management (not available outside of
> Oracle, for example), and so on.

If it were needed by enough people it would exist.  Obviously, it is
not.

> 
> How can you "not want" something if you don't know that it exists, or
> don't know that it can help you avoid re-inventing so many wheels?

I think it is a safe assumption that the majority of professionals
in the IT industry are aware of the existence of RMS.  It goes back
a lot further than VMS. So it is obviously not a matter oflask of
knowledge.

Same for DCL.  VMS used to be a powerhouse in the academic world.
And yet, when we still used VMS as the primary academic machine here
at the University once our department started putting up Unix systems
we were constantly inundated with request to provide Unix accounts
to faculty and students who were not happy on VMS.

> 
> C-ISAM and B-tree were not just kludges whipped up by a user to fill a
> local need. 

Right, they were products developed to fill a need.  And when the other
things you listed become percieved as needed they, too, will be provided.
At the moment, they are not.

> 
>> so that someone will add them to Unix?  Seems to me
>> that it makes more sense to just wait until someone actually needs them.
> 
> They already need them. If the need for something never existed, DEC
> wouldn't have invented it, and then propagated it forward into VMS.

If they needed them they would eitherL
A. add them to Unix
or
B. Move to VSM where they have them

Being as neither is occuring, I posit that while you may "need" them
the majority doesn't seem to think so.

> 
>> >
>> > 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.
>> 
>> Old joke, don't see the point in this context except as stated above.
> 
> The context is there - you may need to open your paradigm a bit more to
> allow yourself to see 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).
>> 
>> Isn't that what I said?  If it does do the same thing as Unix fork() then
>> it it would be "a Unix compatable fork()".
> 
> Keyword: "compatible" (not "identical")

Back to playing semantics.  It wither does what fork() does or it doesn't.

> 
>> >
>> > Why would the upper layer software care what happens "under the hood" of
>> > SYS$FORK(), it is existed?
>> 
>> If it did the same as a Unix fork(), it wouldn't.  But, I believe the
>> show-stopper is that it can't. 
> 
> Again, it depends. If the user code THINKS it achieved a UN*X-like fork,
> and can manipulate the resulting elements as if it had, does it make a
> difference whether the machinations inside the kernel were identical to
> UN*X or not? (they likely would not be)
> 
>> I seem to recall that copying all the
>> open file descriptors was one of the things that VMS couldn't do.  If
>> I am remembering right, that's a show-stopper as I can show you at
>> least one program right now for which that capability is an explicit
>> requirement.
> 
> ...until someone finds a way around it. Same as UN*X? Probably not. Same
> end result? That's all that matters.

Well, no one in the VMS camp has up to now.  And given how long people
have been clamoring for it, I would expect there is something inherent
to VMS that prevents it.

> 
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> > Rather like comparing a wrench to channel-locks or a vise-grip: - its a
>> > question of the right tool for the job.
>> 
>> No arguemnt from me there.  But, sadly, there seems to be less and less
>> jobs where people see VMS as the right tool.  With all its supposed
>> advantages, its shortcomings compared to other OSes seem to be really
>> holding it back.
> 
> If you need a tool that won't round-over the flats on a nut/bolt head,
> but your hand is not strong enough to hold a channel-lock tight enough,
> and you've never heard of a "vise-grip" (which is trade name for a brand
> of locking plier, not an actual type of tool), then what's the right
> tool for the job? It's the tool you don't have and don't know about, is
> it not? You still want/need it, you just don't know about it.

So, start marketing all these great feature for Unix.  But don't hold
your breath.  Not everyone falls for hype.  Some people actually wait
for a real need.

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>