[Info-vax] HP wins Oracle Itanium case

[David Froble]

Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2012-08-20, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2012-08-20, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> I really don't understand this attitude that Unix is so great and inevitable. 
>>>> Seems mostly a self fulfilling prophecy rather than based upon merit.  I guess 
>>>> if you say something enough, people might start believing it.
>>>>
>>> Well for starters, in just one market segment, there's getting on for
>>> about 1 million new devices per day which contain the Linux kernel
>>> (if not the traditional userland tools) been activated by users.
>>>
>>> In some markets, Unix is not only inevitable, it has already arrived and
>>> it's not going to displaced any time soon.
>>>
>>> You will also find, even when the underlying OS is not really Unix, that
>>> a number of OS vendors have implemented a Unix-style POSIX programming
>>> environment. This appears to be very common in the RTOS world.
>>>
>> So, are you saying this is what happened, or are you saying that Unix won these 
>> jobs by merit?  What I'm asking about is merit.
>>
>> If DEC had positioned VMS to perform all these jobs, and I'm talking 1990 or 
>> perhaps even before, including proper marketing and pricing, would it (VMS) have 
>> been feasible, or are you saying VMS could not do the job?
>>
> 
> VMS as it stands simply could not do the smartphone job I mention above.
> 
> The reason is the extreme portability (when compared to VMS) of the
> various Unix (and especially Linux) kernels. Porting VMS to a new
> architecture is a major multi-year project. Porting the Linux kernel
> is still a significant project, but is made _much_ easier by the fact
> it's designed to be ported and is mostly (apart from bits of very
> low level architecture specific code) written in architecture
> independent languages.
> 
> When the next new architecture (or major new architecture variant) with a
> MMU (and simple user/supervisor mode protection) comes along, it can be
> made to reasonably easily run Linux or another portable Unix kernel.
> Try doing that with the VMS code base.
> 
> The current VMS code base would have to be thrown away and re-written
> from the ground up as a portable OS before it could compete in these
> market segments to the same extent as Unix. This is part of what the
> various microkernel discussions have been about in the last few months
> in comp.os.vms when talking about FreeVMS. No sane person would take
> the current VMS code base and try porting it to, say, ARM type MCUs.
> 
> In addition, the VMS source code would have to be freely available so
> that various third parties could port it to their new architectures.
> I am not talking about writing a new BSP for a new board/CPU within a
> existing supported architecture range here (for which you may or may not
> need the source code depending on OS design), but for when you need to
> extend a existing architecture or support a new one.
> 
> One of the beautiful things about the current Unix/Linux infrastructure
> is that anyone can just take the code and port it to a new architecture
> or CPU range without having to ask anyone's permission or having to pay
> a large amount of money to a vendor to do the job for them.
> 
> Also, once you have support for a new architecture, it's easy for a third
> party to get Unix/Linux running on various random boards/CPUs implementing
> that new architecture without having to go back to a OS vendor to do the
> work for you. (This is especially important in market areas such as
> smartphones/routers/etc with their product/application specific boards.)
> VMS would need this capability as well, even if the source code was
> not available.
> 
>> I know that DEC blew it by trying to milk every last penny in profits, with no 
>> vision of the future.  But what I'm saying is, I don't think Unix was a superior 
>> OS, and I do think that VMS could have been the de facto standard that Unix is 
>> today.
>>
>> Address the merits of Unix ..
> 
> The merit of Unix is that it's designed to be portable unlike VMS.
> 
> In addition, it's API has been specified as a open standard (POSIX) so
> a Unix-lookalike interface can be implemented on any other non-Unix OS
> you like when Unix itself will not do the job (ie: in a RTOS).
> 
> Marketing will not help you if your OS will not easily run on the
> next new architecture when it comes along.
> 
> Simon.
> 

Not sure how to get my point across.

Most of what you write isn't about the relative merits of VMS vs Unix, but about 
Unix being available, low cost or free, sort of portable, and such.

Imagine if in the neighborhood of 1990 DEC produced portable versions of VMS, 
that ran on (or could be modified to run on) just about every type of hardware, 
made the sources available for such purpose, and all the other "virtues" you 
claim for Unix.  Made the price "right" too.

With these "virtues" being equal, and DEC continuing to develop and market VMS 
instead of half or more of the company trying to kill it, it's my biased opinion 
that the "merits" of VMS would be superior to Unix.  Just wondering if I'm 
justified in considering the architecture of VMS superior to Unix?