[Info-vax] OpenVMS in the future, Open sourced or Closed? Intent is to keep it...

[IanD]

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 9:08:02 PM UTC+10, seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 11:42:35 PM UTC-5, IanD wrote:
> 
> IT truths.
> 
> When something is going to fail spectacularly we call it a cloud so when it fails we can say it is having a storm or "cloud burst."
> 

lol

I have a friend who works as a PM for a very large media company and they are pushing what they can to cloud 

His constant gripe is that when dealing with Amazon and it's AWS platform, try getting traction on an intermittent problem, it just doesn't happen

That said, they still continue because price rules everything, service is second

> When something is going to be non-robust we OpenSource it.
> 

Can't say I totally agree with this one

The linux kernel has got more and more robust as time has gone on

> When something is going to have all the security and hardening of toilet paper we put it on x86.
> 

A lot of cool secure functions of the Itanium processor were not used. Everyone wants security but no-one wants to pay the true cost of having it, until that happens, cracks will remain open

> None of these truths should _ever_ be allowed to happen to VMS.
> 

????

> We should drop the Open from the name too.

Yes, the use of the Open name was a little cheeky BUT that is because the Open word means something different now than it used to doesn't it?

I thought Open in VMS land was because of it's posix compliance wasn't it?

It's like the word 'to let', used to mean a place was not available for letting (renting), now it means the total opposite. Words and their meanings can change over time

http://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/