[Info-vax] A possible platform for VMS?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <md0l4k$62c$1 at dont-email.me>,
	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> Kerry Main wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at info-vax.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Stephen Hoffman
>>> Sent: 01-Mar-15 1:11 PM
>>> To: info-vax at info-vax.com
>>> Subject: Re: [New Info-vax] A possible platform for VMS?
>>>
>>> On 2015-03-01 17:41:52 +0000, johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk said:
>>>
>>>> Windows may well be acceptable for lots of outfits. VMS was in that
>>>> position once, but times changed.
>>> Windows solves the problems — bugs and all — that a whole lot of folks
>>> have.
>>>
>>> Most folks buy computer systems to do work, and security is secondary
>>> to that, after all.
>>>
>>>> The same could happen to MS. Much
>>> And already has, if you include mobile and tablet devices in the
>>> population of client devices in use.
>>>
>>>> as it happened to Apple (and then a miracle occured).
>>> A whole lot of focus, a whole lot of work on products, and a whole lot of
>>> "no".
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh_9Wwx43r4>.
>>>
>>> More than a little of what's been discussed here in comp.os.vms will be
>>> getting a "no" from VSI, too.
>>>
>>>> At the risk of getting repetitive again, one size does not necessarily
>>>> fit all (not in a sensible world anyway).
>>> At the risk of being entirely too repetitive myself, please provide a
>>> better alternative.
>>>
>> 
>> A flash from the past - time to back to basics.
>> 
>> Windows is a thick client model. In the days of expensive and unreliable 
>> networks, that model worked well. It is well known the huge Mgmt
>> costs, complexity and security challenges this thick client distributed
>> model has.
>> 
>> Imho, with 10MB+ Inet connectivity becoming common place to homes, 
>> And 1GbE to work desks, a better model is a secure thin client accessing 
>> files on a private (internal shared services) or external cloud (not 
>> necessarily public).  
>> 
>> With this model -
>> - patches applied to the thin client whenever the user connects (can
>> be optional or mandatory)
> 
> Ok, let's look at the average home computer user.  What is the normal 
> usage for many?  Surfing the web could be high on that list.  While many 
> times being run on what you call a thick client, a web browser could 
> exist on your thin client.  Tablets and smart phones could be considered 
> thin clients.  Many people get by with just a smart phone these days.
> 
> For such users, if there was a decent "cloud" (I dislike that term) that 
> could provide content on demand, and some additional things, most home 
> based users would be satisfied, AND BETTER OFF.  The pointy stick in the 
> eye here is "decent cloud".
> 
>> - back end uses clustering so that patches can be applied with zero 
>> service availability impact.
>> 
>> Even gamers are starting to look at this model as the fat clients are
>> constantly being hacked and the games are becoming much less fun
>> for many users.
>> 
>> Google is already getting quite a few converts to their hosted docs
>> and email offerings - including many universities.
>> 
>> Imho, with the exception of some heavy duty design / graphics use
>> cases, the thick client days are numbered.
>> 
>> Perhaps OpenVMS based thin client on cheap x86 is a future option?
> 
> But, what's the client?

OK, now that I have stopped laughing....

You people are making some very interesting assumptions about "home"
users.  I just moved into a new home.  I am 17 miles from the Scranton.
PA.  6th largest city inthe state.  Guess what.  I got no Internet.
Not avaialable.  Not going to be any time soon.  Only option is thru
DISH using HughesNET.  And if you know anything about that, very few
people can afford it and they specifically state what it can and can't
be successfully used for.  Email and HTTP.  No video, no audio, no
gaming.  Nothing that requires guaranteed bandwidth and low latency.
And I imagine that more than 50% of the US has this or less available
service.  

I use thin clients at work.  They are nice.  But they also require
high bandwidth and low latency.  Until everyone has fiber to their
home desktop and the backbone has unlimited bandwidth :-) the only
model that will work in the average home is what we have today.
doesn't have to be Microsoft, but the computing horsepower needs to
be local.

bill


-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>