[Info-vax] 2009 VMS Bootcamp notice

[Johnny Billquist]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <glc32k$ca0$1 at tempo.update.uu.se>,
> 	Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article <glatl6$4e9$1 at tempo.update.uu.se>,
>>> 	Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> In article <TqLL22IXgJHp at spock.koehler.athome.net>,
>>>>> 	koehler at spock.koehler.athome.net writes:
>>>>>> In article <f_udnQFNAIAMN_HUnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d at giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
>>>>>>> So learn Unix.  It's not VMS, and never will be, but Unix people will be 
>>>>>>> in demand long after VMS is laid to rest!
>>>>>>   UNIX people will be in demand after VMS people only because VMS will
>>>>>>   just keep quietly running along with no attention.
>>>>> God, when will this myth finally end.  I have a Unix box here that has seen
>>>>> no attention since it was installed in July of 2004 other than continuing to
>>>>> add new user accounts every semester.
>>>> Really? That should be a very insecure system in that case.
>>>> I don't know of a single version of Unix (not even OpenBSD) which 
>>>> haven't had atleast some CERT alerts serious enough to require upgrades 
>>>> and serious checkups.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'm claiming any superiority of VMS, but the unbiased Unix 
>>>> praise sometimes can go a bit too far.
>>> I have never claimed Unix is invulnerable.  That is the ballywick of
>>> the VMS fanatics.
>> But you did claim that you have a Unix system which you haven't since 
>> you installed it in July 2004 (except for adding users). 
> 
> Which merely matched the VMS claim of 5.x years without being touched
> that was coupled with the claim you can't do that with Unix.
> 
>>                                                           And I question 
>> if that is a good thing. 
> 
> Experience seems to prove it isn't a bad thing.  If your not running things
> with holes in them you don't have to fix those things.

So, which variant of Unix is it, so that I can give you n (incomplete 
but long) list of known problems? :-)

>>                           Since those systems actually do need attention 
>> (as do VMS).
> 
> The attention needed depends on what the machine is doing and what
> attention one feels is necessary.  The box in question has one task
> to perform, a major one in my infrastructure, but one task just the
> same.  It is just fine at it's current level of OS and needed software
> for that task.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  How many times have
> we been regaled with stories of machines still running VMS 5.5?  Unix
> is no different.

Unix *is* different. Trying to claim it's the same is silly, and you 
know it.
However, it is just as silly to claim that VMS is the best thing since 
sliced bread. And once VMS started using C, it basically got down on the 
same level as Unix anyway.
The biggest issue I have with Unix, with regards to security, comes from 
the problems in C. And the biggest problem there are buffer overflows, 
which are notorious for turning up everywhere, and is pretty deeply 
embedded within the whole language philosophy. Heck, until a few years 
ago, you didn't even have a bunch of functions that are absolutely 
required to even have a chance at making it safe. And most code still 
don't use those functions. :-(  (Think sprintf, for instance.)

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol