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

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <mi406i$sll$1 at dont-email.me>,
	David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> seasoned_geek wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 10:37:24 AM UTC-5, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> On 5/2/15 7:01 AM, IanD wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be 'interesting' to know however from the horses mouth if
>>>> open source is indeed a goal for VSI or not
>>> Clair Grant has said he's already attempted and failed to make VMS open 
>>> source several times.  I don't know but would venture a guess that the 
>>> last time was during the negotiations for the current deal with HP.  It 
>>> seems really unlikely open sourcing would happen unless and until that 
>>> deal is replaced with a completely different one, and it seems highly 
>>> unlikely that's even a possibility until some years down the road.
>>>
>>>> Open source is one way to get rapid development happening
>>> So the hype goes. That can happen, but as often as not even critical
>>> open source projects like NTP are maintained by one or two beleaguered
>>> volunteers who are strapped for resources:
>>>
>>> <http://www.informationweek.com/it-life/ntps-fate-hinges-on-father-time/d/d-id/1319432?print=yes>
>>>
>>> Open source can work, but it works best when companies who depend on it
>>> are investing a lot in making it happen.
> 
> And when that happens, they wrote it, they paid for it, it's theirs. 
> Sometimes they might not want to share ....
> 
>> VMS cannot and must not be OpenSourced. There are far too many security implications for the entire human species.
>> 
> 
>> In the case of nuke plants, we aren't just talking about the United
> States. In its infinite wisdom the government allowed certain
> corporations to create, in affect, turn-key nuke plants. These things
> were exported far and wide. Not just the reactors, but control systems
> and the whole 9-yards.
> 
> Sounds like a good idea to me.  Write one application, test it 
> thoroughly, then use the proven application everywhere.
> 
> I ain't buying it.  If we're talking about a process monitoring and 
> control application, why would it ever be connected to "the world", ie; 
> the internet?  Now, since there is no reason, doing so would be negligence.
> 
>> OpenSourcing such an OS allows ONE deranged individual with a whole
> > lot of hate and time on their hands to patiently study, find a >weakness,
> > patiently locate "enough" plants to make their point, and well, do 
> the > math.
> 
> If the computer system(s) cannot be accessed, how is some simple hacker 
> going to do anything?
> 
> Got news for you, the sources have been given out in the past.  Just not 
> the capability of re-selling the OS.
> 
> Which causes me to ask again, what do you mean by "open source"? 
> Sources are available?  Software is free and can be re-sold?  It's a bit 
> like calling someone a socalist because he wants to do the right thing.
> 
>> People can malign the Patriot Missile System all they want, but, until it is scrapped by the U.S. and _every_ country it was sold to, VMS will not be OpenSourced.
> 
> Patriot missile systems are connected to the internet?
> 
>> VMS is for customers who cannot tolerate or legally use a Wal-mart knock-off platform.
>> 
>> commodity != good
>> 
>> commodity == low quality
> 
> Not always, but, yeah, lots of times ....

I don't know where he got the idea that Patriots use VMS, but if it's
true I wouldn't be out there bragging about it.  Read about the fact
that it can't even maintain an accurate clock for over 20 hours resulting
in the inablity to hit anything without frequent reboots.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>