[Info-vax] Whither VMS?

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.
> 

If it ships with the O/S, is installed with the O/S, and is used during 
the installation, I think it might just be "part of the O/S"!

sh is part of Unix in the same sense that DCL is part of VMS.

Of course, if you define the O/S as the kernel you are right but I don't 
accept that definition so you are wrong!
;-)

Want to try an experiment?  Delete DCL.EXE and reboot.  Oh, and I'd 
recommend an image backup of your system disk first!  And have a copy of 
standalone backup that you can boot from.