[Info-vax] CLI editing, was: Re: VMS - Virtual Terminals - A security risk way back yonder OR was that an Old Wives Tale ?

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2016-02-14 06:08:45 +0000, lists at openmailbox.org said:

> There is a definition for what UNIX is and just because an OS supports 
> POSIX or is similar to UNIX doesn't make it UNIX.

Apropos of standards and specifications, might want to look up OpenVMS 
and DII COE support with the V7.2-6C1 and V7.2-6C2 releases, and 
subsequent releases.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/702523/9459543/1290013450717/199909-Engert.pdf 

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/government/coe/index.html
http://www.linux.slashdot.org/story/00/08/29/2156251/Linux-and-DIICOE-Compliance 


This compliance was for better Solaris compatibility, and wasn't the 
OSF UNIX specification that you're referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification

But none of which is worth a warm bucket of snot without having 
competitive features, and the necessary vendor and particularly 
third-party applications, and an associated and growing customer base.  
 OpenVMS has none of these, and neither virtual terminals nor command 
line editing nor UNIX 03 testing nor claims of "security" will get 
OpenVMS there.

Marketing is certainly part of this — VSI is (with the benefit of the 
doubt) wisely remaining largely silent here, as they don't have 
anything of interest outside if the installed base.   There's 
effectively unbounded work for even a much larger developer team.  Work 
that's needed to haul OpenVMS to what's now expected.   The x86-64 port 
is certainly part of this, but one of a very large number of pieces and 
parts needing enhancements — some others of which are likely at least 
as big as the port, too.  That's while the competitive platforms are 
still moving forward.  This work before there's something that's really 
worth marketing more widely (i.e. outside of the installed base), and 
marketing and feature support that won't get dismissed by folks 
expecting competitive features.

There'll necessarily also be a bigger shift in the mind-sets of the 
application developers and third-party vendors and the end-users, too.  
 Decades-old servers running decades-old software don't pay the bills, 
can't be reasonably supported, nor is absolute upward compatibility an 
achievable goal when substantial forward progress is required.  That 
semi-dead AlphaServer 2100 being discussed in parallel is negligible 
vendor revenue.   Server hardware prices and software prices have 
completely overturned the market where OpenVMS and other similar 
products once thrived, too.

Without an entry-level product offering, OpenVMS is at a disadvantage 
around increasing the size of the installed base, too.   Not that 
competing with "free" is going to be easy.

TL;DR: Folks buy servers to solve problems.   Unless you have existing 
OpenVMS software, why would you even consider or buy it?   That's 
something VSI management and marketing will be ruminating on, too.  
Because if you're not adding customers and installations and wholly new 
applications, you're (unfortunately) in a declining business.   The 
servers and the software will age out over the years, and be replaced 
with what's currently familiar and what's currently affordable and — 
yes — what's currently in vogue.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC