[Info-vax] BASIC compiler in the hobbyist distribution

[lists at openmailbox.org]

On Fri, 29 May 2015 14:01:05 -0400
David Froble via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:

> lists at openmailbox.org wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:30:15 -0400
> > Stephen Hoffman via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
> 
> big snip ...
> 
> > 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.
> 
> That's two things.
> 
> First, VMS running on Power might be interesting.  As far as I know, 
> Power is still faster than x86.  But what do I know.  It would at least 
> give people an option.  However, I doubt the return on investment would 
> be worth it.

I think it might be worth it because of the reasons I mentioned. A premium
OS has to run on premium hardware. There is a rule of sales that says if
you can't sell something, raise the price. If VMS runs on Intel then VMS
has to differentiate from other OS running on Intel or there is no reason
to believe what's been happening to all the other OS running on Intel won't
happen to VMS. Linux is blotting out everything else. Cheap wins.

If you don't want to or can't compete on cheap, and you're able to compete
on good, then you need to stay away from environments and ecosystems like
Intel where the battle is for fastest/cheapest.


> Second, just because VMS runs on x86 doesn't mean that it's trying to 
> compete with commodity OSs.  That is two separate issues.  Trying to say 
> one leads to another is not a given.

I think it is a given because when you target a platform that only
commodity OS run on, then you're de facto competing with commodity OS. If
you want to sell Cadillacs you can't sell them on the floor next to
Hyundais. You need a separate dealership.

Think about it: the best OS have most often been closely coupled to premium
hardware platforms. And even the best commercial UNIX have been built to
run on platforms that were built more or less for the best performance and
reliability of that OS, like Solaris on SPARC, Irix on MIPS, and HP/UX on
HP 9000s, etc. Intel has been a platform for people for whom cost is an
issue. It has much historical burden. It's ugly as sin. It's not a premium
platform, on the contrary it's cheap and widely available- even though you
CAN spend tons of money on "high-end" Intel-based servers you don't have
to. It's all more or less the same crapwware because it comes down to
the CPU and ISA which is a junk ISA.

There is nothing expensive running on Intel at this moment that isn't in
the process of being displaced by Linux. There are some much better OS than
Linux running on Intel but that doesn't matter. What matters is cheap.

> I remember the PDP 11/40.  Compared to today's commodity HW, the 11/40 
> was much less.  Crapware doesn't even begin to describe the difference. 

That isn't really relevant. A basis for comparison would be what were the
available minis and how did they compare to the 11/40 and the other PDP-11
family members? I'm not familiar with PDP equipment so I have nothing to
say except it is axiomatic anything today runs faster than anything made
yesterday. But faster is not always better enough. And fast is not
necessarily equal to good. Sure, fast is important. But if you don't have a
lot of other stuff than fast by itself is not enough.

-- 
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