[Info-vax] A possible platform for VMS?

[William Pechter]

In article <clj9b3F62nuU1 at mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>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>   


And do you trust the cloud providers to hold your data and guarantee it's 
safety, security, and scalability.

My view is if I have my own data I can encrypt it and it's accessible from
no one not on my home lan.

I've got two firewalls between me and the outside world -- so they have to 
go through something better than the old firewall that Verizon gave me for my 
FIOS which hasn't had new updates in a while.

My Linux based IPFire box gets updated often with new fixes.
I recompiled the source with the available bash fixes the day they became
available -- just in case -- because I could.

Bill
-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com  http://xkcd.com/705/