[Info-vax] There are none so blind :-(

[Steven Underwood]

"Richard Maher" <maher_rj at hotspamnotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:gsggkr$mhk$1 at news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
> Hi Steven,
>
> Look, clearly what's left of the "VMS Community" is in a worse state than
> Grampa Simpson's retirement home; one might as well hang up the "Please do
> not discuss the outside world" signs and be done with it :-(
>
> But as another exercise in futility. . .
>
> "Steven Underwood" <nobody at spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:O5yDl.16185$Qh6.209 at newsfe14.iad...
>>
>>
>> "Richard Maher" <maher_rj at hotspamnotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gre36n$6nd$1 at news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In addition to the Apple, IBM, SUN, Microsoft, and HP-UX support for
> IPsec
>> > I
>> > wanted to see what the level of Linux/IPsec support was out there. Well
> as
>> > far as Linux goes, I found comprehensive IPsec support has existed for
>> > some
>> > time on Red Hat, SuSe, and Debian flavours. Are there others I should
> look
>> > at?
>> >
>>
>> This is a serious question to everyone here though it may sound like a
> slam
>> to Richard's argument,
>
> The fact that everyone else on the planet has been doing IPsec for years
> certainly commands some gravitas and respect. At least from some quaters.
>

As asked in the question, they have been available, but are they being used? 
I don't know which is why I am asking the question.

>>
>> Yes, IPsec exists on these other platforms, but how much is it being
>> actually used?  is it really needed?
>
> How much is 64-bit addressing being used? IPv6? Infiniband? The Wheel? Yet
> your silence on these issues is deafening.
>

In my environments, none of these are being used.  The reason for my silence 
is that being in only 2 environments both rather old, I did not feel my 
experience added anything to the discussion.

>>
>> In the last 12 years, I have been in only 2 different environments and
>> neither used IPsec.
>
> Well that's case-closed then! You should be a pollster for the next
> elections.

My point here is that my experience is not sufficient to draw any 
conclusions, which is why I was asking the question.

>
>> The Windows environment has been a secondary support
>> environment for me in both of these positions, basically keeping things
>> running, but being small enough locations that I was included in decision
>> making.
>
> Fascinating!

It may be fascinating to you, but many companies in the real world work like 
this.

>
>>
> 8< Snip  - More wikipedia-fodder
>
>> In both of these companies, I have had numerous different vendors
> discussing
>> our network wants/needs and nobody had ever mentioned IPsec in either
> asking
>> if we were currently using it or telling us why we would need it (and 
>> need
>> them to help us implement it to its fullest).  No SOX auditors ever
>> mentioned this as a potential problem or even as an improvement to what 
>> we
>> were doing (and they made LOTS of recommendations).
>
> Steven, I've got no idea what your agenda is here, why you have singled 
> out
> IPsec to draw the line in "the evolution of computing" or your "IPsec is 
> by
> far and away the one thing we need the least" campaign, but if you could
> explain exactly why you'd be happy with writing-off all of the millions
> already invested in existing IPsec functionality and isolate VMS servers 
> yet
> further then I'd be curious to hear it?

Once again, I am just trying to get a feel for how much IPSec is being used 
in the real world, away from VMS.  From the people I have discussed this 
with outside of this group, mostly our insurance partners, IPSec is not 
being used very widely, especially in the IPv4 area.  In addition, I spoke 
with 2 different vendors in this area and neither had had any major requests 
for IPv6 or IPSec implementations.  I guess my point is, since as far as I 
can see it is not being used anywhere else, I have no need and little 
outside support to push these projects in my environment.

>
> If you could then explain why you're also content with the IPv6 and WSIT
> spending then I'd also like to hear that.
>

My interest in this has never been toward the VMS side of the issues.  As I 
have said elsewhere, my VMS system is likely locked at its current 
configuration until the developers move the current processes to other 
platforms, likely home built Windows applications.  Nothing the VMS system 
is doing is irreplaceable given enough time and money to make the 
conversion, it is basically an Oracle client the does batch processing at 
this point.

> But you've not answered one of my questions or acknowledged the strength 
> of
> the counter-arguments in previous posts so I'll leave you and all of the
> other System Managers here content with their "Well, if we haven't needed 
> it
> till now then what the hell could it be good for?" argument. God help us!
>
> They say you get the Govt you deserve, well the VMS User-Base has 
> certainly
> got the VMS Management it deserves. The next time you're wondering why 
> they
> have just shafted you senseless, it's not just 'cos you let'em; you
> pssitively demanded it :-(

I have not had contact with HP/Compaq/Digital for several years.  The 
current environment has been exclusively 3rd party hardware/OS support for 
about 10 years with no software support (I've been there 2).  The previous 
environment had 3rd party hardware support and HP/Compaq/Digital software 
support (OS, Pascal) for more than 10 years.  Even there, the only contact 
with HP/Compaq/Digital I has was receiving the quarterly updates which were 
never opened until I needed them to build personal Hobby boxes.  There was 
one upgrade process I went through in 13 years there (DEC Alpha 3000 box to 
ES40, OS and Oracle upgrade).  The DEC Alpha 3000 remained in service 
without upgrade at a smaller environment.  My previous site also still had a 
MVII (may still as far as I know) running VMS 5.2 which had been the 
financial system until 1999 when Y2K spending allowed them to force the 
upgrade (they had been working around the known problems for several years). 
That box was still running when I left for government auditing purposes.

At both places, we were small enough that any upgrade required a large 
enough percentage of the business people to change focus from current money 
making to the upgrade process that upper management did not see any business 
advantage to the upgrade process continuing.

>>
>> Thank you
>
> No, thank you. It's been delightful :-(
>>
>
> Regards Richard Maher
>
>

I'm not overly concerned with anything done for/to VMS because I have seen 
the writing on the wall for a number of years... VMS has no future.  It will 
simply continue to work for what I need it for and for what it currently 
does.  Your concern, here and elsewhere over several years now, seems to 
indicate you believe it has a future.   Good luck with that.