[Info-vax] Computerworld: OpenVM was too consistent

[Paul Sture]

Gérard Calliet (pia-sofer) wrote:

> Le 13/12/2013 20:58, JF Mezei a écrit :
>> On 13-12-13 10:11, tadamsmar wrote:
>>
>>>> >>Now had CW kept VMS in the face of senior management ...
>>> >
>>> >Can you blame them?  Software that works is so boring.
>> I'll be the devil's advocate here:
> As usual ? :=)
>
> We are boring, we have to know it, but we have to understand why :
>
> two reasons : we didn't have fun projects,
> 1) we didn't modernize, for two reasons:
> 1.1) our supplier didn't care about VMS, and didn't invest anything for 
> more than 10 years
> 1.2) we didn't, as a community, adopt any new things from the new brave 
> IT, for two reasons :
> 1.2.1) we had very good critics about new things (itanic, java, open 
> source...),
> 1.2.2) we used these critics to do nothing new.
> 2) the general context of mission critical has evolved for two reasons :

> 2.1) "software that works" is worth it only in central critic domains, 
> unseened by DG,

Who is DG?

I know that when I mentioned Disaster Tolerance to a group of IT folks a
decade or so ago the majority claimed that it was too expensive and
everyone else settled for Disaster Recovery.

That "good enough" thing again.

> 2.2) we don't need tera or mega flops to help video transports, or games 
> support, so our market is not of interest.
>
> A little bit boring presentation :=(
>
> What was funny with VMS compared to Big Blue ?
> VMS was about mini-computer. Concept : Agile Mission Critical.
>
> Future of VMS : Agile Mission Critical
>
> VMS against Big Blue : to prove mission critical could be agile
> VMS against modern clue : to prove agility needs mission critical centers.

-- 
if you say: X is totally The Unix Way.', then remember this.
UNIX says 'Do one thing and do it well'

What one thing is X doing and what is it doing well?