[Info-vax] Unix on A DEC Vax?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <nospam-9BBB3A.18542519012013 at news.chingola.ch>,
	Paul Sture <nospam at sture.ch> writes:
> 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.  

In the past week I have done a 2008 Server and a Ubuntu.  Which one
do you think was harder?

> 
> 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?

I never thought it was deliberate. Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

> 
> 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.

My last Ubuntu install asked only one question: Do you want to use the
whole disk?  In the average users desktop install I can think of no
reason to ever answer no.

> 
> 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.

I have always assumed this was due to the fact that some of even the
kernel stuff in Windows is in dynamic libraries that need to be reloaded
before later patches can be applied.

> 
>> > 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.

But that's not VMS.  There were lots of alternatives for Windows in the
early days.  None of them ever had enough marketshare to compete.  Now,
that could be because being the OS vendor MS had a legitimate competitive
advantage or it could  have been their questionable business practices,
but in any event, if the biggies like WordStar and WordPerfect could not
compete thinkng that DEC ever had a chance would be rather naive.

> 
>> >                                                             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.

Read what I said again.  I am not talking about MS Vista.  Vista is a
hospital/medical office package written originally for the VA.  it runs
on Mumps.  Most hospitals frontend it with Windows boxes but that is
nothing but the UI.

>  
> <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.  

The only ring like this I have ru into was Ubuntu which says something about
Flash being third-party and making me click a checkbox if I want it.

>                                             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.

Some rags are questioning how much longer the Apple domain will last.

> 
>> 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.
> 

I am actually looking at VirtualBox on Server 2008 again.  It has improved
but it still has some quirks I don't like.  But we will see where it goes.
The built in virtualization from MS seemed to be cutting some people (like
FreeBSD) out of the picture.  VMWare is really nice.  As long as you work
for someone with deep pockets.  The only employer I have had in a long time
who met that requirement was the government and with the state of the budget
and the the economy, that may not last either.

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>