[Info-vax] Using VMS for a web server

[David Froble]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <ml4hth$4fh$1 at dont-email.me>,
> 	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article <mktg9v$6jo$1 at dont-email.me>,
>>> 	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>> Perhaps there are VMS problems that customers can use VMS to solve in 
>>>> the most effective manner?
>>> Name one.
>> What does my being able to name one have to do with reality.  I 
>> certainly don't have every problem in the world.
> 
> The point is that no business has a VMS or a Unix or even a Windows
> "problem".  What they have is a business problem. 

In general I agree.

>> Are you implying that VMS is never the best solution?
> 
> No, but in its current state, after years (decades?) of neglect
> it lacks much of what is needed to solve today's business problems.

No less than it had in the past.  Not all business problems have moved 
beyond what could be done in the past.

>> But Ok, you tossed down the gauntlet, and I can provide one sure answer.
>>
>> Running VAX/DEC/HP Basic applications.  Not only is VMS the best 
>> solution, it is the only solution.
> 
> My point exactly.  That is a specific application problem and not a
> business problem.  Or are you  implying that it would impossible to
> do what your software does (just hwat is that, I wonder?) in any
> language other than VAX/DEC/HP Basic?  I hardly think so.  Remember,
> we are talking about the task, not the specific implementation.

Define impossible.  In some cases, hard enough can be equated with 
impossible.  In my example, a number of businesses are using an 
application that solves their business problems.  To re-implement 40 
years of development (not 40 man years) would be impossible.  The 
customers would go out of business.  Or, they could pay more than they 
can afford for SAP (et al), have it fail as it has done so many times, 
and go out of business.  So I ask, define impossible.  I claim that it 
would be impossible, financially, to re-implement the solution in any 
other environment.

Your definitions may differ ....

Now if your claim is that it's possible, when the cost isn't a factor, 
yes, I'll agree, many things are possible when cost isn't a factor.  Now 
it's up to you to find one instance of such things where cost isn't a 
factor.

>> I'm sure you'll come back with one of your smart-ass replys, but, you 
>> issued the challenge, not me, and I've successfully met it.
>>
>> :-)
> 
> Sorry, but you have not.  You have merely reinforced the idea I (and
> others) have been trying to get accross.  It's not the OS, it's not
> the language the application is written in.  It is the functionality
> of the application that the business needs.
> 
> bill
> 

I don't agree.  With your perspective, when we wake up each morning, we 
would have to re-build the entire world.  There is value in things that 
already exist.

I suggest that you need to consider existing things when you start 
defining "possible" and "impossible".