[Info-vax] Reimplementing VMS, was: Re: HP adds OpenVMS Mature Product Support beyond the end of Standard Support

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Bill Gunshannon <bill at server2.cs.scranton.edu> wrote:

(snip)
> More than enough, but that is still irrelevant to the original issue.
> VMS is not a microkernel and a microkernel is not VMS.  People here
> have historically stated that nothing is as good as VMS and nothing
> is an acceptable replacement.  Now, all of a sudden, a microkernel
> is a suitable replacement for the VMS kernel.  

> What happened to all the security, stability and functionality 
> issues?  

Not that I follow it all that closely, but I thought the idea
of a microkernel was that it was more secure and more stable.

The most important parts are small enough that you can verify
their stability and security faster. In the case of a new VMS,
less work to get it working would be pretty important.

> If a microkernel is an acceptable alternative to the VMS 
> kernel why has noone written a VMS API for a mmicrokernel 
> in the past?  Then this whole issue of the demise of 
> VMS would have been moot from the start.

Then, outside the kernel, you do whatever you need to make
it look and work like an actual VMS.

-- glen