[Info-vax] I guess VMS can't lose?

[Simon Clubley]

On 2010-11-07, Main, Kerry <Kerry.Main at hp.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com]
>> On Behalf Of Simon Clubley
>> Sent: November-07-10 5:41 PM
>> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] I guess VMS can't lose?
>> 
>> On 2010-11-07, Main, Kerry <Kerry.Main at hp.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Those who say otherwise have no real experience in large Linux shops.
>> >
>> > These shops have given up testing important apps before they roll out
>> > the 5-20+ security patches per month. They have adopted the old
>> > Wintel strategy of "patch-n-pray".
>> >
>> 
>> You may wish to discontinue posting this type of comment until after the
>> new VMS engineering team gets it's act together.
>> 
>> Simon.
>> 
>
> You missed the point. 
>

No, Kerry, _you_ don't get it.

There is very real anger about what is happening to VMS as a review of the
postings in comp.os.vms over the last few months will tell you.

People see the VMS patch process and general VMS maintenance collapsing
around them and wonder where it is going to end.

Then, while this is happening, you come along and spout off your usual
comments about how the VMS process is so much better than everyone else.
This is so out of touch with what is happening at the moment, I have to
wonder if you realise just how out of touch your comments are.

You talk about VMS as it was in the past, and not how it is at the moment.
Furthermore, the non-security VMS patches still fix non-security bugs
in VMS (usually serious ones) and need to work just as well as the security
patches.

This is not about the number of patches released per month especially
when the majority of those patches refer to products and functionality
which VMS does not support.

This is about the quality of the engineering process and I can tell you
that the vast majority of the Redhat based patches work just fine. I wish
the same could be said about the current VMS patches.

You offer the opinion that customers cannot afford Linux due to the
maintenance costs. I dispute that, but at the same time, I would ask you
how long will VMS continue to be a viable option if the current problems
are not fixed ? All the patches which come out of VMS engineering need
to work in order for VMS to remain viable and not just the security ones.

And while I am at it, just how many security issues are waiting to be
discovered in recent VMS versions, but are not because no-one cares.
(The majority of Linux issues are discovered by third parties.)
Look at what happened when someone briefly looked at VMS a couple of
years ago. I doubt this has been improved by replacing a experienced
team with a new one.

So like I said, you may wish to discontinue posting this type of comment
until after the new VMS engineering team gets it's act together and starts
releasing software with the same quality as the old VMS team.

[And before anyone starts about this been India v the rest of the world, it
isn't. You would have had the same results if VMS had been kept in the US,
but transferred in the way it was to a bunch of newly graduated US based
people to maintain, so please do not turn this into a India bashing thread.]

>
> Regards,
>
> Kerry Main
> Senior Consultant
> HP Services Canada
> Voice: 613-797-4937
> Fax: 613-591-4477
> kerryDOTmainAThpDOTcom
> (remove the DOT's and AT)
>
> OpenVMS - the secure, multi-site OS that simply works
>

It _used_ to simply work. Not so much these days.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world