[Info-vax] BASIC compiler in the hobbyist distribution

[lists at openmailbox.org]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:30:15 -0400
Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:

> On 2015-05-29 11:37:04 +0000, lists at openmailbox.org said:
> 
> > On Thu, 28 May 2015 20:04:41 -0400
> > Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2015-05-28 23:26:16 +0000, David Froble said:
> >> 
> >>> seasoned_geek wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 1:50:52 PM UTC-5, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> That was my point.  Is Solaris even relevant in today's IT world?
> >>>>> If I were VSI I would not waste time trying to determine how to
> >>>>> "compete" with Solaris.  And AIX while still doing OK is really a
> >>>>> very niche product and probably not really a competitor anymore.
> >> 
> >> Ayup.  I'd expect those AIX folks to head to Linux or to System z, if
> >> they decided to port off of the current POWER systems.  Some few might
> >> go to Solaris or BSD or to some other Unix.
> > 
> > AIX -> z is an absolute non starter.
> 
> The premise is folks that want reliability, and are already running 
> IBM, and that are porting.  So... Yes, System z (hardware) is in play.  
> Maybe not z/OS (software).

But you said "I'd expect those AIX folks to head to Linux or to System z."
Linux AND System z would still be a very big upgrade, a non-trivial
conversion, and would not make sense in any scenario I can imagine nor have
I heard suggested.

If they are on AIX and want reliability they can stay where they are.
People don't port for sport. I don't see a usage case for your example.

> > First of all the costs and capabilities of z so far exceed AIX there
> > isn't any discussion at all. If they needed z they would already be on
> > it. AIX is competition for other commercial UNIX. That market is mighty
> > thin these days.
> 
> Which was my point.  Not enough of those folks likely to move, and not 
> enough of those that will move are going to move to OpenVMS.

Agreed.

> 
> FWIW, I don't make the "commercial UNIX" distinction.  Porting 
> applications among the Unix platforms has been a hassle for the last 
> thirty years I've seen of it.   Porting among the various choices has 
> gotten somewhat easier, but it's still hassles.  Those AIX folks are 
> not going to be looking to port to OpenVMS and not to OpenVMS without 
> open-source — open source which seasoned_geek has been railing against.

I agree somewhat. I agree AIX people aren't going to VMS. But I don't
believe much open source is running on AIX. I could be wrong, AIX is not my
area. I have a few friends in POWER hardware but it's been a while since I
spoke to anybody working on AIX.

> >>>> Actually worth it, more so than chasing the "free" market at this
> >>>> point. The people in those particular niches, particularly AIX and
> >>>> AS/400, have real business needs and have been able to justify
> >>>> spending of significant cash to service those needs.
> >> 
> >> So you're suggesting that the AIX folks port from a Unix system to
> >> OpenVMS?   The port starts out as pretty much a rewrite.
> > 
> > And your comment that you would "expect those AIX folks to head to
> > Linux or to System z" doesn't entail a complete rewrite in the System z
> > case? And as I said z is magnitudes more capable then anything else
> > being discussed here and has nothing in common with AIX or any UNIX
> > machine. It is not used to run UNIX-like work. If they need UNIX-like
> > workloads or apps they run zLinux in an LPAR (roughly, a VM on z).
> 
> Which runs on System z hardware.

You said "Linux or to System z" and in normal English we understand "or" as
exclusive or. Nobody runs zLinux on bare metal. When you say System z with
no further qualification you mean z hardware and z/OS. You've made a lot of
questionable statements about IBM, mainframes, and MVS in the past. I think
your suggestion AIX people will port to System z is just unsupportable and
incorrect and you should quit doing that and stop trying to spin it into a
Linux discussion. If it's Linux then just say Linux. Linux doesn't care
what platform it runs on and nobody who can afford to run Linux on Intel
crapware runs it on anything more expensive than that. Running Linux on
System z hardware is abominable, it's offensive. It's like driving a
Ferarri on the grass in your front yard (in this case the z hardware is the
Ferarri and Linux is the wet grass.)

> > If they needed  System z they would already be running that and not AIX.
> > That they're not means a mainframe is not on their radar.
> 
> But OpenVMS is?

No. You suggested AIX people would move to Linux or System z and I just
pointed out System z is not an option. The fact I didn't mention every
other target OS or platform doesn't suggest those are options ;-)

> 
> > 
> >> One Egg One Basket designs have been fading out, thankfully.
> > 
> > Hard to tell from the numbers. IBM just announced healthy growth in the
> > mainframe server (System z) market just today.
> 
> I was referring to application designs.    Critical applications that 
> run on one big box — without provisions for some sort of failover — are 
> getting rare.  Some of these designs involve cold or warm standby 
> servers, and an increasing number of the designs can use multiple 
> servers for performance or geographic distribution or whatever.

The mainframe still does this well and it's still a fairly normal design
pattern. Mainframes essentially don't fail and they essentially don't use
much load balancing. They can be set up for that but mostly they aren't.

> > I don't believe that at all (check quoting depth- this appears to be
> > from seasoned_geek who btw does me a great service 95% of the time
> > since I don't have to write anything after reading what he says- but
> > this time I don't agree). AIX was designed to kill other commercial
> > UNIX. And it did pretty well. Who's left?
> 
> Linux, the BSDs, and OS X, as the Unix boxes go.

"Commercial UNIX". None of Linux|BSD|OS X was around when AIX came out.

> > The AS/400 was the grandpa of the S/34 and S/36 and was just a general
> > purpose office mini for commercial applications. What it did kill was
> > just about every DEC mini. State Farm still has a farm of AS/400s
> > running today. None of this is competition for VAX. It's a different
> > market and a different workload.
> 
> My point: you're not likely to see that stuff ported to OpenVMS, which 
> was what was being posited.

I agree with you that it's not going to happen. I just didn't see anyone
suggest it would. I think we're going in circles here somewhat.

> >> Ayup.  But then I'm also wondering what sort of hardware seasoned_geek
> >> would be going after these IBM customers with, here.  Probably not with
> >> Oracle SPARC.  Beyond Kittson, probably not Intel Itanium.  ARM isn't
> >> fast enough (yet?).  POWER?  That would be going after IBM and IBM
> >> users on their own home hardware turf.   That'd involve an OpenVMS
> >> port, and then making a really tough marketing case.
> > 
> > Earlier I did suggest VMS should be ported to POWER. POWER is now open
> > and real non-IBM servers are available. A premium OS like VMS needs
> > premium hardware. Running on Intel crapware is only going to lower VMS
> > to their standards. "You can't wrestle with pigs without getting dirty."
> 
> So you're proposing getting the AIX folks to port to OpenVMS on POWER?

No, I'm proposing a port of OpenVMS to POWER would be well placed in order
to get new business and stay viable as a premium OS. If VMS stoops to
compete with commodity OS on Intel, Linux on Intel will wipe it out of
existence.

> Now for the wider and more general market, VSI just won't sell enough 
> POWER boxes to matter.  POWER is a dead-end, per all the hardware 
> architecture trends.  By all external appearances, IBM is spinning off, 
> opening up, and otherwise getting out of that business.

IBM also got out of the x86 business. Is Intel a dead-end therefore? I
think it is, but not for the reasons you mentioned.

> Doing what they can to keep it going, but it's not headed in the right
> direction. If the VSI goal is volume sales on reliable hardware — and 
> seasoned_geek posted a pretty good testimonial to the general quality 
> of some of those Lenovo x86 server choices — then that's x86 boxes.  

No matter how hard you bang the Intel drum you are not going to convince
everybody. There are those of us who realize the best Intel crapware ever
made isn't premium hardware and won't ever be.

-- 
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