[Info-vax] 2013 OpenVMS Boot Camp

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <nospam-280778.17471716012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
> In article <alifpsFsgb3U1 at mid.individual.net>,
>  billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> 
>> In article <nospam-B2BF85.09184514012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
>> 	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
>> > In article <kd0477$oga$1 at reader1.panix.com>,
>> >  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.  There may of course be systems 
>> > in use which are not seen by normal military staff, 
>> 
>> And you would not consider that trivial and oscure?  How important
>> can any system be when you don't think it necessary for your IT
>> experts, the ones you call on when all the regular folks are baffled,
>> the ones chosen for their position based on their level of expertise
>> and experience, are not only kept totally uininformed of it but are
>> told, in no uncertain terms, that the OS is dead and of no interest
>> to DOD.
>> 
>> >                                                     but are critical for 
>> > the manufacture and testing of military hardware.  
>> 
>> That would be the responibility of the manufacturing contractor, not
>> the DOD.  A deal with Boeing or General Dynamics is not with the
>> government.
> 
> OK, I didn't realise that.

Most people don't.  The government buys very little at this level on its
own.  In every case I was involved in they ended out getting mini's or
mainframes from a contractor who kept responsibility  for the maintenance.
So it would be the contractor on the hook to DEC/Compaq/HP and  not the
government at all.  The PC world has changed a lot of that, but not at
the real computer level.  PC's are bought from DELL and have the same
warranty as everybody else.  Software is bought from MS and has the
same warranty (or lack thereof) as everyone else.

> 
>> >                                                    Planes tend to have a 
>> > fairly long lifespan, and that can get extended beyond original plans.
>> 
>> Name a plane that uses VMS to fly?  Other than J-Stars, which doesn't
>> "need" VMS to fly.  Is J-Stars even on VMS any more?
> 
> I was thinking of the support structure rather than the actual planes, 
> especially with respect to how costly it can be to get stuff 
> re-certified on upgraded systems.

Because they are no longer certified by DISA it would take a lot of
additional paperwork to get approval to even buy a VMS systems today.
How many civil servants do you know who are willing to do extra work
to acquire anything when a COTS alternative that can be bought "over
the counter" is avaialable?

> 
>> This actually made me curious so I went out and looked.  Here's an
>> item that mamny here should find interesting.
>>      "The OWS operating system (Open VMS) will be upgraded to a
>>       modern Linux OS architecture".
>> 
>> Taken from a 2012 AF document justifying the 2013 budget item.
>> 
>> http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2013/AirForce/stamped/0207581F_7_PB_2013.p
>> df
>> 
>> Other interesting note:
>>     "the 19" OWS display will be replaced with 27" displays, and software
>>      applications including Open Office (MS Office-like) and MoveINT Client
>>      will be installed."
>> 
>> Open Office (MS Office-like)  --  iintersting.  :-)
> 
> I am surprised they are looking at OpenOffice, 

It probably comes bundled with whichever distribution the contractor is
pushing.

>                                                  since everyone else I 
> know has moved on to LibreOffice.  

Everyone?  I know of no one who was using OpenOffice (myself at the top
of the list) who has changed or even plans to.

>                                     The main developers of OO had some 
> sort of fall out under Oracle's stewardship and at the last look it was 
> being transferred to the Apache lot, and progress was slow.

It is already a fully functional product that easily competes with
MS Office.  I would need real reasons to change.  Politics don't fall
under that category.  If you are going to be affected by politics you
might as well get out of the Open Source world.

> 
> RE: the current warnings about Java as a browser plugin:

That affects everyone equally.  Homeland Security over here says to
just turn java off.  :-)

> 
> IIRC OpenOffice in earlier distributions had Java bundled with it, 
> though that got separated out and became a separate download.  Until the 
> latest version LibreOffice would scream the first time you ran it unless 
> Java was present, nut it worked perfectly fine without Java with the 
> exception of the database stuff and perhaps some accessibility stuff.
> I just upgraded LibreOffice to the latest version last week and it no 
> longer protests about the lack of Java.

Well. considering all the people using PHP I really fail to see the
concern over Java security.  That's like buying $1000 locks for the
door while leaving the windows wide open.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>