[Info-vax] DCL's flaws (both scripting and UI)

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2015-01-23 19:41:17 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 15-01-23 13:03, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> 
>> DCL can certainly be enhanced, yes.  Various enhancements can likely be
>> useful to me, too.   But I'd also ask whether a better buggy whip is an
>> appropriate goal here.
> 
> The other option is to port the good bits of VNS to Unix and make it
> easy for customer to move from VMS to a unix with enough middlware to
> make their VMS software run fairly easily. (aka: libraries. utilities,
> editors, logical names, clustering etc)

Such a product already exists, and has been commercially available and 
supported and in use for at least ten years.

This is a commercial offering, and quite separate from the prototype 
Mach kernel transplant that was demonstrated by DEC many years ago.

Whether the existing product is enough, or whether the creation of a 
competing offering from VSI might be interesting to folks, I don't know.

I'd suspect that ongoing development and getting VMS to x86-64 would 
address a number of the concerns that might otherwise incline folks to 
consider VMS middleware, though.   Being able to operate VMS on some 
number of ProLiant boxes directly or as a guest will allow many folks 
to use commodity hardware and software configurations, and particularly 
as VSI adds support for additional x86-64 hardware configurations.

In any case, I also doubt there'd be much agreement around either the 
naughty bits or the good bits.

Yes, I'm deliberately not mentioning the name of the product.  Folks 
that might guess it or might know it, please don't give the game away 
here.


-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC