[Info-vax] OT: news from the trenches (re: Solaris)

[David Froble]

lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
>> IBM is not going to reacquire the fabs, and they're not going to get 
>> back into either the x86 or the fab business, and it would not surprise 
>> me to see IBM eventually migrate to commodity x86-64 processors even on 
>> their mainframes, assuming they don't spin off the z business.
> 
> Unless you're talking about emulation and there are a few choices there,
> there is no way to run a mainframe on x86 processors nor commodity anything.
> 
> All the software ever written for the IBM mainframe depends on that
> specific architecture and ISA. From 1964 until today the OS has never been
> ported to another platform and it won't ever be. To get off the box you
> have to emulate the hardware. The OS is too big and too complicated and
> most of all too closely coupled to the hardware (which is why it works so
> well) to ever be ported.
> 
>>> Yeah but you seem to have suggested there's a question whether VMS can 
>>> or should run on cheap hardware given the VMS customer is typically a 
>>> high end customer.
>> You're suggesting that x86-64 isn't high-end
> 
> That's right!

Ok, don't just say it, defend that statement.  What about the current 
x86 processors isn't up to it, whatever "it" is?

Speed?  With the exception of possibly (most likely) Power, nothing is 
as fast.

Memory addressing (size)?  64 bit addresses seems to be overkill.

Regardless of whatever their previous source, today's x86 CPUs is about 
as good as it gets, today.  Shitty beginnings or not, run the benchmarks 
and weep ....


>>> If you think about it I'm not sure porting VMS to Intel is not going to 
>>> be suicidal. After they see they can run on cheaper hardware, isn't 
>>> cheaper software the next step? And Linux is free and eventually some 
>>> pinhead is not going to approve the budget for that wierd OS nobody 
>>> ever heard of, since Linux is free...
>> Have you ported OpenVMS applications to Unix?
> 
> No, I have about a week or so experience with OpenVMS. And I'm not talking
> about porting. I'm talking about customers abandoning/replacing. I think
> that's going to happen if VMS tries to compete with *NIX and be just
> another Linux/UNIX substitute. I hope they don't try doing that. I would
> like to see the OS running on top quality (non-Intel) hardware and be a
> prime product.

We have an application that is in use by multiple customers.  It 
basically runs their business, wholesale distribution.  It has over 40 
years of development behind it.  Lots of business logic there.

The application is mostly written in DEC / COmpaq / HP Basic.  We looked 
at porting.  It would not work.  Probably easier to start over. 
However, the cost was deemed prohibitive.  Probably cost less to pay for 
the VMS port to x86.  Not that that much money would ever be available. 
  So, no port, and no re-write.

>> The only bet against Intel and high-volume x86-64 I can see here is 
>> with ARM
> 
> Everybody seems to believe Intel is always going to be here. I realize it
> seems like that today but tomorrow could be different.
> 

I'm sure it could be.  I have no love for Intel.  But, what else 
reasonable is there?

It's not the CPU that's important.  It's the environment, and the 
applications, and for quite a few VMS users, there is not a viable 
alternative.  And thus, an opportunity for VSI.  And salvation for many 
of us.