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

[seasoned_geek]

On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 7:02:09 AM UTC-5, IanD wrote:
> > 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
> 

Try actually using it where it has to actually be robust enough to be a patient's life on. There is a relentless amount of hacking and of putting redundant processors, etc. in place because it can never get there.

The kernel cannot in any way be made robust or secure __and__ keep any portion of its installed base. It is written in C. Vast portions still pass char * and rely on NULL terminated strings. Until each and every aspect of the kernel and all shared libraries pass everything by descriptor just like VMS, IT CAN NEVER BE MADE ROBUST.



> > 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?
> 

Open was added completely for marketing. They were working on Posix compliance and were the first to achieve it, but the Gartner Group and several other industry analyst groups which are little more than paid marketing agencies were paid to market "proprietary bad, open good." They were also saying people should use Microsoft Windows because it was on computers from so many different vendors at the time, YET IT WAS AND STILL IS A COMPLETELY CLOSED OS, just ask the EU regulators.