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

[JohnF]

Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-02-04 14:48:20 +0000, JohnF said:
>> Bob Koehler <koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
>>> JohnF <john at please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> Do you know if a re-implementation of vms system services, rtl, etc, 
>>>> has been done, using unix ipc mechanisms, etc?
>>> 
>>> Since two or three vendors have products in this space,
>>> it must have been done.
>> 
>> Yes, my automated logical inference engine confirms the validity of 
>> your conclusion from your premises. But I'm unable to construct a 
>> google query to generate concrete examples, i.e., could you provide a 
>> few names?
> 
> Sector7
Yeah, thanks Stephen. That's the one mentioned by Keith
that seemed to me like the "real thing".

>> Thanks. P.S. Got any free ones?
> haha that's just so cute.

Why? There are quite a few enormous projects available
for free. Of course, the demand for a "vms api" is probably
insufficient to attract any serious gpl development effort.
   But I think a smaller effort might be feasible, based on
the 80/20 idea that 80% of programs only use (the same) 20%
of vms services. And some of the more usual stuff, like
mailboxes, event flags, logical names, etc, seems reasonably
doable. Likewise, some subset of rms. Whereas some stuff maybe
not so easy, e.g., The sector7 ui stuff like fms and smg
(did they have tdms?) certainly caught my eye -- surely worth
paying for if you need it.
-- 
John Forkosh  ( mailto:  j at f.com  where j=john and f=forkosh )