[Info-vax] Whither VMS?

[urbancamo]

On Sep 16, 5:15 am, Judge Judy <nos... at shaw.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:42:32 GMT, Curtis Rempel
>
> <cur... at no.spam.here.telus.net> wrote:
> >Looks like another VMS casualty:
>
> >http://blogs.computerworld.com/14637/linux_powers_worlds_fastest_stoc...
>
> One reason VMS was so secure was it was so useless when it came to the
> Internet.   Apache with Mod Perl is a nightmare.  It has a CGI module,
> that just does not work and does not support threads.  Most Ftp
> clients don't recognize VMS.   Even DOS was more powerful when it came
> to the internet applications than VMS, and was easier to use.  Batch
> files in DOS and shell scripts in Unix are easier to read and write
> than scripts in VMS.

Well I can't comment on the Web Server support, but come on, batch
scripts are easier to read and write in Unix and DOS! I really cannot
agree with that. Have you seen the average bash script that needs to
do something anything other than trivial? Maybe you're comparing the
noddy scripts you can write with the DOS batch language compared with
DCL? Please explain your comment about DOS and internet applications
because that simply doesn't compute. Have you ever tried to get DOS to
talk to a network, let alone the internet?

Listen, I sit firmly on the fence between Unix and VMS and love both
for different reasons, but DCL is much more readable that sh/bash/bat
any day of the week.