[Info-vax] VMS port to x86

[David Froble]

Keith Parris wrote:
> On 5/31/2012 4:51 AM, JKB wrote:
>>     If you want to keep VMS alive, you must have a VMS port to amd64.
> 
> I agree. x86-64. And ARM might not be a bad 2nd target.
> 
>>     I'm not sure that HP would start this kind of development.
> 
> We know from http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/7-1623010.pdf 
> that as of the end of 2008 Martin Fink said the VMS business was less 
> than $100M (although one could argue he probably wasn't including 
> Services, Storage, Networking, etc.).

 From some perspectives, that is still a rather large chunk of change.

If there is no future for VMS, then you (HP) can kiss that $100M good-by.  Frankly, there 
are many companies that do not gross that much in a year.  Seems small business is viable.

I wonder how many $100M HP can kiss off before there is no HP ??

> We know from 
> http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/10-1623014.pdf that HP-UX 
> was estimated to cost more than $100M to port beyond first boot on x86. 
> Perhaps because of the work already done during the Itanium port to make 
> OpenVMS more portable and because it's already Little-Endian, OpenVMS 
> might be significantly less expensive than HP-UX to port. Still, can the 
> OpenVMS organization realistically afford to spend some number that's 
> probably on the order of at least one year's total revenues to do an x86 
> port?

Again, if they don't, they kiss good-by that revenue.

> There's also fear that in another architecture migration, even 
> more ISVs (and thus customers) would be lost.

This one is easy.  VMS has already lost much of what it will lose, unless customers have 
no future.  What's left is pretty much customers who will run VMS in whatever way they 
can, and will be really upset if they cannot.

So whatever the revenue is now, it's pretty firm, and could quite likely go up, not down. 
  Give them something they can trust, and some might come back, having suffered with the 
alternative.

> If an x86 port did happen, 
> I'm guessing it would have to be based on HP's goodwill and commitment 
> to its OpenVMS customers, not because of its financial attractiveness.

See above.  To be or not to be, that is the question  :-)

>>       Thus, conclusion is very simple, we have to start to write a VMS 
>> clone
> 
> VMS is viewed by the marketplace in general as legacy, out of date, 
> old-fashioned, or at least irrelevant.

What marketplace?  The market that wants tablets and smart phones, or the market that used 
VMS and such before there was PCs, notebooks, smart phones, and tablets?

This is the problem with looking at the "marketplace".  If that is all that matters, then 
tablets and smart phones are the way to go.  You're going to run your business on a 
tablet, huh?  Don't think so.

If you're going to look at "the marketplace", then look solely at the market that needs a 
VMS or something in the same "class".  (Not that I feel anything else is, but that's just 
me.)  Hint!  It's a very small part of today's overall computer market.

> Even if the existing code is 
> open-sourced, or HP ports OpenVMS to x86, it will still have the same 
> perception in the marketplace. (We here know that OpenVMS has valuable 
> attributes such as 4-ring security and high availability with shadowing 
> and clustering and scalability with clustering that are ideal for 
> current marketplace needs, but most everyone else can't see past the 
> "Out-Of-Fashion" label that's been stamped on it. So it's been harder 
> lately to pick up new customers and new ISVs.)
> 
> To be fair, most proprietary UNIX flavors are also seen in much the same 
> light. Linux, on the other hand (although we all know it is just UNIX, 
> warmed over) is seen as new and exciting.
> 
> An open source VMS clone would likewise be seen as something new and 
> exciting and interesting, although we here know it would most likely 
> simply deliver the same types of value and capabilities provided by the 
> existing proprietary OpenVMS product in an open source (thus free in 
> purchase price) and open (in terms of vendor independence and 
> development freedom) distribution model.
> 
> An open source VMS clone would fit well with HP's direction with Project 
> Odyssey, which aims to provide as much as possible of the value of 
> HP-UX, NonStop, and OpenVMS on x86 server hardware.

The only benefit I might consider about open source is I have to wonder whether HP could 
do any better.  They have let go too much talent.