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

[David Froble]

lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
> johnwallace4--- via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
> 
>> OK, thanks for that. Rather terse answer here as I need to be elsewhere...
> 
> No fair! Ask and run!
> 
>> 1) I do see where you're coming from. 
>>
>> 2) Much x86 carp is, as you acknowledge, hidden from most users, admins,
>> programmers. But not all. Depends on hardware and depends on OS, and
>> depends on your area of interest.
> 
> Yes, that's it. I don't believe anything I wrote is important to OS
> customers generally. We're talking about the shortcomings of Intel and there
> are plenty. But I do feel that at least in my professional circles it is
> universally agreed Intel is commodity crapware and I think that part does
> affect VMS's future since it is going to be targeted at a platform which is
> known to be subprime in the industry.
> 
> But the platform does have an effect on the developers that write the OS
> and products that run on it. I think Intel brings out the worst in those
> groups, for a few reasons. One, it's a sloppy non-architecture so it
> promotes nearsightedness and good enough is good enough solutions. It's low
> end so people realize it's not worth putting out the best quality anything
> since Intel is about speed uberalles and has a sad history of breaking
> upward compatability. If they wanted quality they would go with another
> platform. That's why Intel seems to me a very bad marriage for VMS. Two, I
> think the way things are working today are the tail wagging the dog. If you
> think about OS and hardware combinations that developers loved you're going
> to think about closely coupled hardware and OS that were designed from the
> beginning to work symbiotically. The way things are today that process is
> very badly broken in most mainstream OS- basically it's Intel and AMD tying
> to outdo each other on speed or other features and then the OS people
> usually have to exploit this or that new feature just so they can say they
> did. This is rats on a treadmill and not nearly as productive as having the
> hardware and OS design in house and having the hardware guys providing what
> the OS needs, not the hardware guys driving the OS. We see other successful
> ecosystems where the OS and program product needs drive hardware features
> and this is the way it should be.
> 
> The way things work today with Intel there are several major OS running on
> it and the hardware is optimized for all of them then it's not optimized for
> any of them. With Linux that's fine because it really exploits little in
> the way of hardware on most platforms, with Linux it's more about running
> everywhere than running well anywhere. But other OS that *only* run on
> Intel like Windows and OS/X are chasing the hardware. That isn't how things
> should be done.
> 
> Adding VMS to the mix and what do you get? Do you really think what VMS
> needs is going to be a priority with Intel? No, we have already heard Intel
> has all the great stuff VMS needs. And when it doesn't, then what? What
> choices will VMS have when running on commodity hardware where it is a
> small fish in a big pond?
> 
> VMS needs to run on a premium platform and control the whole ecosystem.
> That is the only successful model (I mean in terms of longevity and
> quality) we have seen. And that includes Wintel which because of Mutually
> Assured Destruction (look at Intel's preliminary financials this quarter-
> the warnings are coming) Intel and Microsoft work together. The others, less
> and less so.
> 
>> 3) You're new to VMS. Welcome. Before drawing conclusions on how much
>> of this legacy-x86 baggage will be visible in a nuVMS world, maybe get
>> yourself a bit more familiar with how the architectural differences
>> have been hidden (or not) in the previous VMS ports? Maybe? VMS is not
>> UNIX. Compatibility has been a long term goal (though sometimes long
>> term compatibility brings challenges too; a change of platform could
>> be a good time to look at some of those things).
> 
> Thanks and again I agree the OS end-user or application developer is not
> affected directly by these issues although I do believe there is fallout
> both tangible and intangible as I mentioned, and it's significant.
> 
> Anyway, for somebody who writes systems code in assembler what interested
> me in VMS was that it ran on platforms I have no knowledge of, and that are
> also supposed to be good and now our hopes are dashed on the rocks on Intel
> crapware again. It's depressing to see what a small world it's becoming,
> where everybody talks about choice but there really is almost none. Anything
> we can do to change that is A Good Thing.
> 
>> And then once you know how much platform-specific stuff has historically
>> been (in)visible, we can start guessing how much it will *matter* to the
>> people with the chequebooks.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> But I'll continue to run old versions of VMS if I do at all, because I have
> no interest in spending any time with Intel.
> 

Much of what you write is correct.  Consider VAX and Alpha.  Both were 
set up to co-exist with VMS.  Much more VAX than Alpha.

But, just as people won't pay for security, they also didn't pay for 
quality.  VAX and Alpha and any potential follow-ons no longer exist.

Reminds me of one of the Sci-Fi movies, where every restaurant was Taco 
Bell.  Like that concept, I don't see any viable alternatives.  If the 
choices are VMS on Intel chips, or no VMS, I'll take what I can get.