[Info-vax] IT shops call on HP and Oracle to kiss and make up

[Bob Gezelter]

On Oct 6, 11:13 am, SeanOBanion <s... at obanion.us> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:56 am, Keith Cayemberg <keith.cayemb... at arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > IT shops call on HP and Oracle to kiss and make uphttp://tinyurl.com/6docx5r
>
> From TFA:
> "OpenVMS, in particular, would be a messy operating system to port,
> Eunice said. “I call it a ‘guts-exposed’ operating system; it doesn’t
> have much of an abstraction layer to simplify the movement to a new
> chipset." Plus, OpenVMS has been ported several times already over the
> course of its 30-plus-year history, he pointed out. It started out
> life on the VAX, then moved to the DEC Alpha chip, and finally to
> Itanium. "The prospect of another port is unpalatable,” Eunice said."
>
> Somewhere I remember a comment about the port to Itainum resulting in
> less hardware dependence, though not a flat out HAL (hardware
> abstraction layer).
> Or is that a hopeful fantasy on my part?
>
> Sean

Sean,

I would in essence agree with John, for any number of reasons.

I would certainly not characterize OpenVMS as a "guts exposed" system.
As I noted back in July 2001 (see www.rlgsc.com/alphaitanium.html,
written immediately following the announcement), there are underlying
presumptions, but they are not "guts exposed". A more appropriate
description would be "minimum functionality required".

Certainly, there are some areas that would require careful, in-depth
thinking. However, the need for careful thought is not unique to
switching architectures.

Recent versions of the x64 family server chips have their attractions,
particularly on the lower performance, lower-cost segments. There are
many areas in that space where there is, IMHO, a potential.

That said, a hypothetical x64 port would clearly only be certified for
some HP blades and systems, as the certification and QA costs are
significant.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com