[Info-vax] Computerworld: OpenVM was too consistent

["Gérard Calliet (pia-sofer)"]

Le 16/12/2013 05:59, Paul Sture a écrit :
> 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?
General Direction, CEO : the men who pay and decide
(versus It Derction, the men who know what works and what doesn't work).


>
> 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.
>