[Info-vax] 2013 OpenVMS Boot Camp

[David Froble]

JohnF wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> JohnF <john at please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>>> Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> wrote:
>>>> JohnF <john at please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> DTL <didier.morandi at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> VMS is dead, buried and forgotten. Well, not for the US DOD, 
>>>>>> Any use of VMS within DOD is minimal and trivial.
>>>>> I know nothing about it, but thought a large part of the
>>>>> reason for HP's ongoing VMS support was very long term
>>>>> contractual support obligations to DOD inherited from DEC.
>>>>> Is that not right? Or, if right, what's the short version
>>>>> of those obligations? And how quickly is VMS support likely
>>>>> to fade away after they expire?
>>>> That was the story a decade or so ago.
>>> Okay, so is/was that story correct, or not?
>> I have heard many times, here, about these long term contracts but having
>> worked both sides of the government contracting game I know that there is
>> no such thing as a contract that extends beyond the end of a Fiscal Year.
>> One cannot commit funds they don't have so contracts tend to be one year
>> long with options to renew inthe future.  In most cases both sides have
>> an out.  I seriously doubt there are any contracts made with DEC that have
>> not expired many years ago.  The only truly serious VMS contract in DOD
>> I have ever been aware of (and that includes not only my DA experience,
>> but also my time with DISA) was JStars and as should have been seen by
>> my other recent posting, after years of trying to get rid of it, this
>> year they finally will.  The fact that DISA, who is responsible for the
>> certification and security of all DOD IS, stopped caring about VMS should
>> have put this to rest years ago.  The last Versions of VMS DISA even
>> looked at were 7.3 for VAX and Alpha and there has never been a Security
>> Checklist for an Itanium System (I know that 7.3 is 7.3 no matter what
>> it runs on, but DISA doesn't look at things that way.)  And these are from
>> 2006.  I even went so far as to ask if they were interested in making a
>> more up-to-date version when I was there in 2009 and was told they had no
>> interest and were planning on dropping VMS completely anyway.  One would
>> think this spoke volumes, but apparently, not here.
>> bill
> 
> Thanks for the info, Bill. I guess that puts that story to rest.
> So I gather HP's ongoing VMS support is based on its own assessments.
> And I suppose that's reassuring, but it's hard to fathom: after all,
> Palmer's assessment, decades ago, was to split DEC up, sell off the
> pieces (like rdb), and then sell the company. That wasn't too
> reassuring, to say the least.

Perhaps that's because Palmer didn't have a clue, couldn't make the 
company work, wouldn't admit it, and was looking out for himself, not 
the company.

DEC had Intel's balls on the chopping block, and settled for 9 billion.

DEC was giving aid to it's competitor, Microsoft, and not getting 
anything in return.

I'm not saying it would have been easy, or even possible, but, PAlmer 
didn't even try.

Disk drive business

DLT tape business

Lots of other stuff

It's all still going today, in other's hands.  Why not in DEC's hands?

You mention RDB.  Another competitor catered to ...