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

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Friday, 13 March 2015 12:50:06 UTC, li... at openmailbox.org  wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 22:05:30 -0400
> David Froble via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
> 
> > >>> 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!
> 
> How anybody could think Intel is high-end is beyond belief. Are you
> conflating fast with good?
> 
> > Ok, don't just say it, defend that statement.  What about the current 
> > x86 processors isn't up to it, whatever "it" is?
> 
> I have already pointed out several objections and I wasn't the only one to
> have done so. I see you're only objecting to what I have said, and not to
> what other people have said that expresses the same view. If you're really
> interested in what I have to say (doubtful!) then go back and read what I
> wrote.
> 
> If you want to argue I have other things to do. And I'm probably not very
> inclined to write a treatise on Intel's track record of failures and
> stumbles as it is well enough known, still affects Intel users today, and
> is not worth rehashing when I have more interesting, non-combative ways to
> spend my time.
> 
> > Speed?  With the exception of possibly (most likely) Power, nothing is 
> > as fast.
> 
> Well, if you want to argue, as you seem wont to do I would suggest you at
> least argue with the person you are picking the fight with. Are you
> violently agreeing with what I wrote, perhaps accidentally?
> 
> I have already acknowledged the Intel is fast. In fact, Intel is not the
> fastest, POWER is faster as you suggested, and the mainframe (probably not
> fair to compare it, but since Hoffman's raising venture capital to port
> z/OS to commodity Intel crapware let's mention it anyway) IBM has had
> clocks over 5.5 GHz in production for a couple of years already. IBM
> usually doesn't compare clocks because they're not a good basis for
> comparison but as long as we're here now you know.
> 
> > Memory addressing (size)?  64 bit addresses seems to be overkill.
> 
> Everybody and his brother has 64 bit addressing. Intel wasn't the first, as
> you might know, and they screwed it up, and couldn't get it done so they
> used AMD's design, which is also broken. Badly! Surprise, surprise...
> 
> > 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 all you care about is speed for the dollar then the argument is valid.
> But nobody said Intel wasn't fast. They're not the fastest but they're the
> fastest for the money. Ok, maybe that means something to people who run
> Windows server because it can't get out of its own way. Solaris runs plenty
> good enough on SPARC. I'll take Solaris SPARC over Intel Linux any day of
> the year.
> 
> Do you really want an ugly woman with a half million bucks of plastic
> surgery? If you look too close you can still see all the scars. That's
> Intel. Lipstick on a pig. And not just one layer and not just one color.
> 
> Don't get confused and think a CPU's goodness is based on how fast it is.
> That is important but there are a lot of other things that matter more. If
> you just write application code it doesn't matter just as you don't have to
> be confronted with how bad your Toyota is if you a) never tear it apart and
> see how shoddily it's made or b) don't have any basis for comparison except
> with other underpowered, poorly-made cars that you also didn't work on. I
> understand there are a lot of people in that category. But they shouldn't
> argue about stuff they don't have any connection to.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is what I have been saying. In many cases, porting is not viable. But
> if you can't port application code in an HLL then do you imagine you can
> port OS and applications written to a specific architecture (not just an
> ISA btw) in assembler?
> 
> > I'm sure it could be.  I have no love for Intel.
> 
> Yes you do, you just said it's the best and you got red-faced when people
> suggested otherwise.
> 
> > But, what else reasonable is there?
> 
> You've asked, we've answered, you don't seem to read the posts.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It depends who's saying that and it's not something that can be said in
> isolation. Sometimes it is the architecture that makes the environment
> possible. VMS was a premium product running on bespoke hardware. If it
> moves towards a commodity crapware platform competing with commodity
> crapware OS then things will probably end badly.
> 
> -- 
> Please DO NOT COPY ME on mailing list replies. I read the mailing list.
> RSA 4096 fingerprint 7940 3F02 16D3 AFEE F2F8  ACAA 557C 4B36 98E4 4D49

I've no wish to argue. I'll be happy to be better informed than I was.

I tried to ask here "what *specifically* do you see as missing from
today's x86-64?" (note: you say Intel. I *assume* you mean x86-64, and
not iAPX432 or 4004 or any other non-x86-64 stuff. But that's an
*assumption* on my part.


I'm not feeling that the "what's missing, what's broken?" question has
been explored, unless the answer was buried in a morass of IBM-compatible mainframe stuff. 

I will happily agree that the original 8086 and the stuff that went with
it (in software and in hardware) was a nightmare in many ways. But then
AMD64 made many improvements which kept the market sufficiently happy
that Intel had to copy them and abandon their home-grown IA64 stuff.

What is it *specifically* about "other stuff" that makes "other stuff"
high end and AMD64 (and compatibles) not high end? [Preferably without
including IBM-style mainframes, but...]

Are those differences really sufficient to put off potential VMS customers?

Anybody?

Have a lot of fun.