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

[Main, Kerry]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com]
> On Behalf Of Michael Kraemer
> Sent: November-10-10 3:11 AM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] I guess VMS can't lose?
> 
> JF Mezei schrieb:
> > Michael Kraemer wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Alternatively he could refrain from posting at all.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No. It is important for the VMS community to hear HP's spin on things.
> > (Whether you believe it or not, hearing it is important)
> 
> What HP spin?
> He always trots out the "xxx patches per month" sermon
> (as if VMS would be much better in that respect),
> ignoring the fact that he's on HP's payroll and his
> employer earns orders of magnitude more revenue
> and profits from those "patch ridden" platforms
> compared to the "OS that just works".
> 

You obviously have not maintained a large enterprise Operations environment
where there is a clear understanding of the difference between security 
patches and functionality patches.

Yes, all patches need to be reliable, but there is a huge difference in terms of
priority and deployment urgency between the two.

> And even if that patch story had substance:
> what would be his or HP's alternative offer to get
> rid of those patches?
> Can we expect a VMS-based desktop replacement
> for Windoze/Linux real soon now?
> 

Oh oh, here we go again .. we are talking servers and now the old "where is VMS
on the desktop?" raises its head .. geeze .. let's keep some focus here ok?

Servers and desktops are different worlds - can we at least agree on this?

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