[Info-vax] Unix on A DEC Vax?

[David Froble]

Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2013-01-18 03:49:30 +0000, Howard S Shubs said:
> 
>> In article <kda3ji$9a0$1 at dont-email.me>,
>>  Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the emulation market, the folks that are choosing emulation will
>>> likely continue to use it until the application(s) age out, or the
>>> management involved ages out, or the organization gets clobbered by
>>> competition.  But those folks are probably not going to be doing very
>>> much with the applications running under emulation, as that's usually
>>> viewed as a dead-end for new investments, even within the organizations.
>>>
>>> Hardware emulation is computing's version of the cover band.  Sometimes
>>> fun.  Variously useful.  But not really what most folks want.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but sometimes it's all you can have.  Such as when the
>> software manufacturer has gone defunct, or might as well have (VMS port
>> to x86, anyone?).  Unless someone can get HP to release source code.
> 
> Or in another way of looking at this, your organization decided to use 
> non-portable features and/or platform-specific software, and for your 
> own code you decided not to isolate the use of platform-specific 
> features, and you decided to not invest in maintaining and updating and 
> portability; you decided that an external dependency was an acceptable 
> risk.
> 
> You're asking about DSSI disks for VAX servers in another recent 
> posting.  If that's related to this, then consider the proverbial 
> writing was on the wall for VAX in 1992 or so, with the advent of 
> Alpha.  There's very little business-critical "stuff" that can't be 
> ported in twenty years.
> 
> Sure.  Folks get themselves into this condundrum, and with various 
> associated justifications.  Which is why we're having this discussion.  
> And this is why there's a market for emulators, even though few folks 
> really want to use those.
> 
> Steve Jobs wasn't fond of dependencies on outside organizations and 
> entities, as the other vendors could choose to cancel or retarget the 
> products[1], or potentially held ransom.  If your dependencies are more 
> portable or are available from multiple sources, you're much harder to 
> derail.  Is that the cheapest approach over the short term?  No.  But is 
> this the cheapest over a longer term?  Very possibly yes.
> 
> Look at how you got where you are with the old gear, and why, and 
> consider if repeating that same decision process is a sequence you would 
> want to repeat going forward, or if you would have preferred a different 
> (non-emulated) outcome.  Then look at what your business is going to 
> encounter going forward, and what you have for resources.  Like 
> jack-posts and scaffolding and temporary bracing used in construction, 
> emulation is a temporary stop-gap or intermediate measure.  It's not 
> going to be a preferred end-state.  OK; so now you're running 
> emulation.  How do you get out of that configuration, and into a simpler 
> and more maintainable configuration?  How do you avoid adding more 
> emulation?  How do you migrate your data, or your apps?
> 
> ————
> [1]Haven't folks been commenting on the Windows 8 UI?  That Microsoft is 
> seemingly not headed where you want to be today?
> 
> 

That's one hell of a rationalization !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We should not have lived in caves because houses are better ...

We should not have used sod roofs on houses ...

We should not be living on planet Earth because sooner or later Sol will 
go nova ...

Specifically about computers:

We should never have used any DEC product, and most other manufacturer's 
products, because they (the companies) weren't going to survive ...

We should never have used any language besides C since they were not 
going to survive ...

We should never have used 4, 8, 16, and 32 bit computers since for the 
most part they weren't going to survive ...

DEC didn't survive because of management, not the products.  Many of the 
products and ideas developed by DEC are still in wide use today, just 
not produced by DEC any more.

The problem with things such as VMS, DEC BASIC, and others is that the 
current owner of the products has little regard for them.  It didn't 
have to end this way.

Now, it's easy today to embrace some things such as Unix and Linux 
because there is not a single entity that can deprecate them the way HP 
is doing with some (all?) of the former DEC products.  I'm beginning to 
see that light.  Not saying I like it.  But would such exist today 
without that which preceded it?  I have my doubts.

To me, the real problem was the lack of insistence by customers in the 
past that they have some protection.  A refusal to purchase VMS (and 
therefore DEC computers) without some assurance that the software could 
survive the company might have provided a totally different outcome. 
Using 20/20 hindsight, I can imagine this software being available for 
maintenance, development, and such similar to today's "open" software.