[Info-vax] Whither VMS?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <Td2dnSX7ar73ACzXnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d at giganews.com>,
	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <HcednTKQvIhBiCzXnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d at giganews.com>,
>> 	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> In article <V49+bpWWDtyc at eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>>>> 	koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>>>> In article <7haqjjF2ssv04U1 at mid.individual.net>, billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>>>>> You just won't accept that there are other ways tio us Unix than a shell,
>>>>>> will you.  At least there has been since the TTY went away.  :-)
>>>>>    I have, and I do, but the application's interface is not the OS
>>>>>    interface.
>>>>  
>>>> So, now we are back to arguing what is OS and what is an application
>>>> on top of the OS.  Is BASH part of the OS?  Is DCL?  I really don't
>>>> think any "OS" has a "user" inteface.  They all have an API for which
>>>> various user interfaces get written.  Under Unix, a "shell" is just a
>>>> user level program.  One is not even necessary in order for the OS to
>>>> be functional for regular users.  Kind of like menu driven captive
>>>> accounts on VMS that offer no access to DCL for the user.
>>>>
>>> I think you could make a very reasonable case that DCL is part of the O/S.
>>>
>>> 1. DCL is part of system startup.
>> 
>> So is the UNix Shell.
> 
> I know that there is some sort of a Unix-like shell on some recent 
> releases but I think it was only in recent releases.  V3.7-V5.5-2 didn't 
> have a Unix like shell.  I don't recall one in V6.x.  I'm not sure just 
> when Posix came along.  I do know that the POSIX shell is a piss poor 
> substitute for a genuine Unix shell.  The last time I tried (it was 
> maybe four years ago) the VMS POSIX shell was not capable of running the
> "configure" script for NTP.

I am not talking about a "shell" on VMS.  We are talking about wether
or not DCL is a part of the OS as it has already been stated that
the Unix shell is not.  I was pointing out that the Unix shell has
the same functions that were listed as making DCL a part of the OS.
I claim it does not and that DCL is just an application that runs on
top of the VMS Kernel.

> 
>> 
>>> 2. DCL is part of system shutdown.
>> 
>> So is the UNix Shell.
>> 
>>> 3. DCL ships with the VMS binaries.
>> 
>> So is the UNix Shell.
>> 
>> 
>> And yet, not part of the OS.  Simple question.  Forget about the
>> inability to configure anything, would the VMS kernel run if DCL.EXE
>> were not present on the system?  If the answer is yes, you make the
>> call.
> 
> Probably, but THEN what would you do?  There is a hell of a lot more to 
> VMS than "running the kernel".  

Of course there is.  and the same is true of Unix.  But that doesn't
make DCL or the Unix shell a part of the OS.  It is still just an
application that runs on top of the OS.

>                                 There has to be SOME interface that lets 
> you do some useful work with the system.  Without such, a computer is 
> nothing more than a very expensive electric heater!

And that wasn't the question at hand.

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>