[Info-vax] Unix on A DEC Vax?

[Paul Sture]

In article <alvu1iFllU2 at mid.individual.net>,
 billg999 at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> In article <50fa9a7b$0$6073$e4fe514c at dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>,
> 	MG <marcogbNO at SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
> > On 19-jan-2013 1:07, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> >> The only operating system which seems to have a serious future
> >> is Linux.
> > 
> > Mostly for "LAMP" web servers, but hardly on 'the desktop' and
> > (especially there) Linux is still extremely marginal.  
> 
> Huh??  I am playing with three different "Desktop Linux" distributions
> now that install easier than Windows and have all the functionality 
> offered by a full-fledged (read after you buy a lot of extras) Windows
> right out of the box!!

Windows installations are far easier than they used to be, particularly 
for the server versions.  

For a long time I was convinced that Microsoft made installation 
deliberately labour intensive.   Do you remember all the kerfuffle a 
decade or more ago about the Out Of The Box Experience from MS, where 
they laid down strict guidelines as to how OEMs wrote their own 
installation routines?

The most accurate description I have come across for that is Stockholm 
Syndrome.  Anyone who had to slog through Windows ME's interminable 
"Press OK to continue" prompts will recognise that.

Linux is definitely ahead of Windows in terms of selecting your language 
and tailoring your disks at installation, but the latter is not for 
novices.

When it comes to applying the latest patches to the O/S, Linux is 
streets ahead of Windows as well.  With Windows you need to apply the 
updates and reboot then rinse and repeat multiple times before you are 
up to date.

> > This was
> > also exactly the area which VMS supposedly underestimated.
> 
> I doubt anyone here evert hought VMS was tsargeted for or even
> reasonbly considerable for a desktop.  None of the orignal development
> was in that direction.  And by the time the "Desktop" became important
> VMS was already to deeply ingrained with Server concepts.

If you had access the excellent DEC Direct magazine produced by DEC UK 
in the early 90s you would have come across various desktop productivity 
tools.  DEC had a word processor for Windows that was well ahead of the 
competition too.  From what I recall that was competitively priced 
against a standalone copy of MS Word, but couldn't hope to compete with 
the bundled packages of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation 
utility, especially where most vendors would offer deep discounts if you 
proved you already had a copy of a competitor's product.

> >                                                             The
> > worrisome part is, that many 'mission-critical' things are on
> > Windows systems; for instance, I've seen TV news imagery from
> > navy vessels here, with Windows logos on the background (of the
> > 'desktop', I presume)...
> 
> Just because the frontend says WindowsXP doesn't mean the backend is.
> Many hospitals have Windows on the desktop and Mumps (yes, that Mumps)
> in the backend. (Look up Vista and I don't mean the one from Microsoft.)

Many moons ago I worked with a product which had the support of more 
users per VAX CPU than any other software as one of its design goals.  
When the developer commissioned an "independent survey" to look at the 
competing products, Vista came out top in several performance metrics, 
with the developer's product coming a respectable second.
 
<snip>

> >             Many drivers, especially for graphics hardware, is
> > still surprisingly poor.  (If price hadn't been an issue, SGI
> > would've still been alive and those IFFFS suites would be still
> > happily running on IRIX, instead of Linux.)
> 
> Funny, I have no problem with it.  I can watch YouTube, which is very
> graphic, with no problems at all.  Of course. if you are talking about
> gaming, all bets are off.  But then, if I want to game I use a game
> machine, not a PC running linux or Windows.  :-)

No problems here either.  There is some silliness with those 
distributions which try to persuade you that "proprietary software is 
evil" and make you hunt for various codecs.  Distributions like Linux 
Mint however say nuts to that attitude and supply you with enough to 
start watching videos and listening to music out of the box.

> > 
> > Most of the complaints that applied to VMS, in terms of so-called
> > 'usability' (like to be running it as a 'desktop' system), also
> > to varying degrees apply to Linux.  
> 
> Back to this desktop thing.  Linux does Desktop just fine.  What di
> you think is missing?  The Office suite is even MS compatable. :-)

Probably more compatible than getting documents produced in one version 
of Word to look like those produced in another.  I gather that Word for 
Windows and Word for Mac have issues here as well.

> >                                    Unlike VMS, Linux is scattered
> > all over the place and there's no single point of 'quality control'
> > and many people (who aren't too streetwise) don't have an idea
> > which distribution would suit them best.  
> 
> That is more a marketing problem.  Is the Windows world any different?
> XP, Windows7, now Windows8.  Which one is the right one?  Oh, by the
> way, I am typing this on a Vista box and still have at least one laptop
> running Vista.

Windows Server 2008 was to a large extent Vista without the crud.  It 
was the first Windows desktop I have actually liked.

> >                                           Some also perceive the
> > 'free' and 'open' character of Linux, BSD and others as being a
> > bit too /laissez-faire/.  In the end, they will often simply fall
> > back to using Windows and OS X...
> 
> And yet, OS x is nothing but BSD packaged by a third party who, by the way,
> have no real control over the direction the lower levels go.  They either
> stand still or risk having all their third party offerings obsoleted over-
> night.

But Apple does have the resources to fork it.

> If nothing else, the current state of Linux (or BSD) is an excellent
> business opportunity but like most, it will be ignored because we
> all know noone can compete with MS.  :-)


No longer true, at least from where I am sitting.  Yes, Windows Server 
2012 has a lot of functionality, but you need deep pockets to get add 
ons like Data Center 2012.  A lot of their licensing stinks too: there 
is an NFS4 client in the Enterprise edition of Windows 8, but Pro or 
lesser users don't get that.  Apparently their pricing for virtual 
machines is probably getting VMware pretty worried, but I cannot help 
feeling that might turn out to be bait and switch.  I am sure I am not 
the only one who has thought of that.

-- 
Paul Sture