[Info-vax] Unix on A DEC Vax?

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <50fbf7bd$0$6337$e4fe514c at dreader35.news.xs4all.nl>,
 MG <marcogbNO at SPAMxs4all.nl> wrote:

> > You wouldn't find Photoshop on VMS either
> 
> Wouldn't that be something, if it did exist!

I think it was tried.  Reimplementing VMS?  I heard that was done, and 
it was called.... Windows NT?  I don't know the details, as I've never 
dug into Windows like that.


> WordPerfect for VAX/VMS, I remember and saw manuals for sale on various
> auction sites (but not the actual software).  But, MS Word?  Was that
> also once available for VMS, or do you simply mean for Windows...?

Yes, it was available on VMS.  LONG time ago.


> Who cares though?  It can be, but it won't happen.  That's the
> problem.

It's happening.  Linux used to be strictly for the few who could build 
their own kernels during installation, find the GNU utilities and etc..  
Now, that's not true anymore.  You don't have to build a kernel to have 
Linux.  Utilities all come with distributions.

Am I saying it's all there now?  No.  But there's been a major advance 
over the last 20 years.  There's no reason to think it's all going to 
halt where it is now.


> Software could be developed for VMS also, but it wasn't forthcoming
> and especially so nowadays.

No.  Software for VMS is all past tense, except maybe for the few 
companies which simply won't get a clue.  HP has made it clear that VMS 
and HP-UX have no future.


> In my experience and from what I hear from people involved with
> 'computers' in varying degrees (from "IT professional" to "end-
> user"), "Linux" to them means 'a [web] server'.

That's fine.  It IS a good platform for httpd.  It's also a possible 
platform for HIS, Utilities, Telecomm, you name it.  I've seen some of 
that already, long since.


> All this talk about diversity, eh?  Apparently not so much of a
> requirement for the world of computing, though.

I'm not talking about diversity.  In computing, diversity is good for 
avoiding the malware scum, but for practical reasons, computers are not 
crops.  Diversity just makes things tougher for compatibility and 
interaction.  But in this case, it's better.  If we all standardized on 
a proprietary system, like Windows, then when Windows 8 came out, all 
those w/o a tablet computer would be screwed.  Not so much a matter of 
"where do you want to go today?" as "this is where you will go today." 
regardless of whether it worked for you.

Linux's strength is that the source code for the os is freely available.  
If you don't like what Programmer Foo has done with flex or libbar, 
you've got the source code and can customize it as you wish.  Don't like 
the GUI?  Fix it per your requirements.  Can't do that with Windows or 
Mac OS X.


> Actually, BSD is even worse off than Linux and especially in that
> regard.  Shame, because I generally like BSDs (like NetBSD and
> OpenBSD).

I'm not speaking against BSD.  I don't know enough about it to do so, 
just that it's still out there and is being maintained as far as I know.


> The feeling I got of it was like a 'commercial generic UNIX with
> much of the functionality of Linux with lots of proprietary and
> unusual administration tools', the last time I tried it (I believe
> version 6.1 on an unwieldy POWER4 thing).

I last used it seriously around 2003-2005 or so.  Extensively in/around 
1995, when I learned UNIX system management with it.  What I've heard 
people say is that IBM tried to take the best of AT&T and BSD for AIX.  
Apparently, the results upset some of them.  Wow, something which didn't 
please everyone all the time forever?  What a shock.  I rather liked it.  
Given "smit", it was an ideal way to learn.  It was better than EDTCAI.


> The desktop of AIX may not have been much, but it did provide
> hardware-accelerated graphics and software like CATIA ran on it.
> (In fact, the last POWER-system I had was originally used at BMW
> as a computer-aided technical design system and still had the
> inventory labels on it.)

I used it strictly as a shell environment.  I can't speak to any GUI it 
might have.  These days, working on certs for RedHat, I mostly focus on 
the shell, excepting some utilities which are better in their GUI form, 
like the GUI interface to LVM, (system-config-lvm) whose better name 
isn't coming to mind at the moment.


> > smit is wonderful for that purpose.
> 
> Digital/Tru64 UNIX also had amazing administration tools, ever
> tried?

Never had the opportunity.  My use of Tru64 under whatever name, was 
strictly as a programmer.


> > The average home computer user reads/writes e-mail and browses the
> > web.
> 
> Those are exactly the things that they'd be able to do on a 'tablet',
> as I said, or not?

For those who can deal with the "keyboard" on a tablet.  As a touch 
typist for the last 30+ years, that's not me.  Whether it's a good 
description of the regular computer user, I have no idea.  My parents 
seem okay with their HP TouchPads and iPad, which also don't have 
discrete keyboards.


> Games, as we already established (unless it's of the small-time 'time
> killing' variety on iOS and Android), are not exactly the forté of
> Linux...

True, so far.  Once Linux gets more attention, the ATIs and NVidias of 
the world will get on the ball and write appropriate drivers.  It's a 
chicken-and-egg problem, here, to get them to start.


> I personally don't really think someone using Photoshop is exactly
> a "power user" either, especially as it's very common nowadays and
> highly proliferated (on the supported platforms).

Have you *seen* the compute power PS will suck down at times?


> Many are based on the harsh statistics.  Linux is mostly a server
> and embedded/tablet platform, that's what I've been saying.  For
> those who try to do more with it, they often run into trouble.

Statistics are based on the past.  I'm talking about the future.


> Audio, graphics, power management, etc. all is very 'reverse-
> engineered' and /improvised/ and I'm hardly the first one to
> ever remark that.  I've spoken with several dedicated Linux
> /developers/ who were far more scathing than me about it.

As things progress, I expect manufacturers to become more helpful on 
this regard.  If the interfaces to the hardware become well documented, 
the programmers will use them better.


> What about Photoshop, when will it finally appear?  It has been
> over 20 years or so, but still nothing.  It's just one example
> and a very well-known one, too.

Sure!  And I'll get in line to buy it when Adobe, or Adobe's successor, 
get on the ball.


> This is what I don't get of some of you here.  VMS 'saw it
> coming', but for the same faults and handicaps, but Linux is
> somehow different?  I don't /see/ it that way, at all.

VMS was/is a proprietary operating system maintained by a small number 
of people relative to the number who can work on Linux.  We can do more 
with Linux than was ever possible for VMS.


> Things haven't changed much for Linux.  The Linux desktop,
> overall, is as poor as it was 10~15 years ago.

Okay, now you're just wandering off into the weeds.


> It only
> enjoyed more bloat (just see Linus Torvalds' fairly recent
> remarks about several major window managers) and a handful
> of companies providing driver support, but often with much
> to be desired (I'd kindly refer you to Linus Torvalds' again,
> like when he lashed out at NVIDIA last year).

I can't argue with him on this.  I agree that the GUIs currently 
available need work, but they're head and shoulders above where they 
were 10 or 15 years ago.


> The only reason why Linux can't really 'die' like VMS can,
> is because nobody truly 'owns' it.  But, it can still end
> up in an even more vegetative state, especially when Google
> and the like steal its thunder and reduce it to "Darwin"
> compared to OS X...

I see this as unlikely.  I see Vernor Vinge's projected future for an 
unnamed operating system as MUCH more likely, that they'll be using 
something descended from Linux in 200,000 years or more.

Look at what's happened to the hardware.  There used to be so many 
different implementations of computer.  So many different companies.  
How many are there now?  Why?  I see convergence on Intel or Intel-like 
processors with everything else fading away.  The longer we go with 
specific kinds of processor, the more difficult it will be to change.  
It's already happening.

-- 
May joy be yours all the days of your life! - Phina
We are but a moment's sunlight, fading in the grass. - The Youngbloods
Those who eat natural foods die of natural causes. - Kperspective