[Info-vax] Current VMS Usage Survey

[johnwallace4 at gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 5, 2013 11:31:19 AM UTC, MG wrote:
> On 5-dec-2013 11:52, "G�rard Calliet (pia-sofer)" wrote:
> 
> > It is not the time to do large historical analysis, perhaps, even if it
> 
> > is of interest. But, just to say something :
> 
> >
> 
> > We talk about dead of VMS, and dead of Itanium.
> 
> >
> 
> > The similiraty between these events is End of Diversity.
> 
> >
> 
> > Itanium dead for a lot of reasons exposed here, I agree. There is
> 
> > another factor : our logic in industry now is : impossible to go out a
> 
> > main stream, when it exists.
> 
> >
> 
> > Itanium was killed also because it is impossible to go out x86, and out
> 
> > of the wars around it.
> 
> >
> 
> > VMS is murdered because the mission critical concept is decadent, and DG
> 
> > think about mission critical as it could be "on the cloud".
> 
> >
> 
> > Everything is a windows xx, running on a x86 yy, all of them in "the
> 
> > clouds".
> 
> >
> 
> > As we destruct every days bio-species, and every month forget a langage,
> 
> > we destruct diversity in computer science.
> 
> >
> 
> > In other words, fighting for VMS is like fighting against End of Forests
> 
> > : it is fighting for oxygen.
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a big favor, do what I did and simply give up.  Have
> 
> you not noticed yet?  Hardly anyone on here can be bothered with
> 
> VMS.  The only reason, I assume, that some still do is because
> 
> they're still employed with it (and for how long?), are simply
> 
> 'used to' it, just so happen to run it and don't know much of
> 
> anything else to switch easily or find it a fun hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have your heart in the right place, but it won't be
> 
> appreciated here anyway, as you've also noticed so far.  (I would
> 
> have told you this earlier, but I was away and out of the country
> 
> for about 10 days and didn't often have internet at my disposal.)
> 
> 
> 
> People like yourself may be possibly vindicated when things like
> 
> nuclear reactors start running on Ubuntu, with all of the possible
> 
> consequences.  Until then, there's no reason to waste any breath
> 
> or break a sweat over here, amongst all of these intentionally
> 
> dense contrarians, naysayers, usual IT/ICT industry (borderline-)
> 
> sociopaths and what-not.
> 
> 
> 
>   - MG

Meanwhile, in other news:

"IBM's System z mainframe running z/OS experienced its fourth consecutive 
quarter of growth, increasing revenue 6.3% on year to US$827 million, 
representing 6.8% of all server revenues in the third quarter of 2013."
[IDC, via e.g. http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20131205PR203.html]

One size does not fit all, even if the stereotypical IT Department and the rest 
of the Certified Microsoft Dependent ecosystem surrounding them think it always 
has been and always will be a world of nothing but Window boxes.


"Linux server demand continued to be positively impacted by cloud 
infrastructure deployments, as hardware revenues increased at 5.6% on year to 
US$3.4 billion in the third quarter of 2013. Linux servers now represent 28% of 
all server revenues, up 2.5pp when compared with the third quarter of 2012.


Microsoft Windows server demand was down 1.3% on year in the third quarter of 
2013 with quarterly server hardware revenues totaling US$6.1 billion 
representing 50.3% of overall quarterly factory revenues, up 1.2 points over 
the prior year's quarter.

Unix servers experienced a revenue decline of 31.3% on year to US$1.3 billion 
representing 11.1% of quarterly server revenues for the quarter. This was the 
lowest quarterly Unix server revenues ever reported by IDC."

I assume a "UNIX server" here is a non-x86 UNIX box (SPARC, Power, IA64, etc). 
UNIX is having a hard time here, courtesy of Linux being "good enough" for the 
vast majority of cases, and Linux, being open source, avoids the "what happens 
if my vendor changes his strategy" nightmare being discussed right here.

I don't know how IDC identify "Windows server demand", given that an x86 
server typically ships with no OS, and may end up running Windows, Linux, or 
something else (*BSD, maybe?). Never mind.

So, to repeat: one size does not fit all. 

HP are not IBM. That is very very clear.