[Info-vax] HP wins Oracle Itanium case

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 8/20/2012 9:17 PM, David Froble wrote:
> 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?

The VAX Architecture ported successfully to Alpha.  Alpha was *fast*!
It ran your choice of VMS or Ultrix (DEC's Unix offering).  Had they not
charged "top dollar" for VMS and Ultrix they could have cornered the 
market in desktop computing!

<sigh>  Greed and stupidity won out!