[Info-vax] A possible platform for VMS?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <mdapjp$j23$1 at pechter.eternal-september.org>,
	pechter at S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes:
> 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.
>>
> 
> And do you trust the cloud providers to hold your data and guarantee it's 
> safety, security, and scalability.

Are you talking to me?  I have gone on record since the beginning telling
people this cloud crap is a BIG mistake.

> 
> 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

-- 
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>