[Info-vax] VMS Features I Wish Linux Had

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-12 12:32, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Den 2016-06-12 kl. 11:12, skrev Johnny Billquist:
>> On 2016-06-11 16:52, David Froble wrote:
>>> Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2016-06-10 18:12, David Froble wrote:
>>>>> John E. Malmberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One issue with the VMS terminal line editing is because it is handled
>>>>>> in the driver, it does not have access to the filesystem to allow it
>>>>>> to do filename completion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not asking this just to be some smartass, even though that's what I
>>>>> am.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the relative value of such a feature?  Sure, developers might
>>>>> make use of it.  But end users of the applications may not even have a
>>>>> clue what a file is, and really, that's who the systems are for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like the many discussions on command line recall, what's the real
>>>>> value?
>>>>
>>>> Well, for those people, even the commandline itself is unknown, so of
>>>> course any additional features in this area are wasted.
>>>>
>>>> It's like asking what the additional value is of binoculars, if we're
>>>> talking about blind people. Of course the answer is "none". But is
>>>> that target group relevant in the discussion?
>>>>
>>>>     Johnny
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we're talking about where VSI should spend their limited development
>>> money, then yes, it's very relevant.
>>
>> So the question you are posing is if VSI should do any work on the
>> command
>> line interface, because a lot of people are not using the command line
>> interface at all? Fair enough. That is a valid question.
>> Anyone know how many VMS users who do not use the command line interface?
>>
>>     Johnny
>>
>
> What is a "VMS user"? Us three that manage the systems or the 2-300
> that actually uses the applications? And they have not access to DCL
> of course. Or are the end-users of the applications not "VMS users"?
> Maybe not...

Don't ask me. I didn't introduce them in this thread.

> And does my customer pay VMS licenses and support costs in reagard
> to us three system managers? Or for the support of the production
> in the factory?
>
> I prefer that VSI spends money and efforts on things that makes our
> VMS systems better support the factory, then anything else. And file
> name completion is not amongst those things.

That is the question, though. Isn't it? Are the majority of users not 
using DCL in the first place, then any new features and functionality in 
there will not be asked for either.

It's funny, though. I think we've had a whole bunch of threads where 
people have asked for improvements and replacements for DCL, and now 
suddenly everyone is saying that this is not needed, and the current DCL 
is perfectly fine as it is, along with the terminal driver.

Oh well. I know that *none* I have ever talked to, who have been exposed 
to shells/CLIs with filename expansion have ever wanted to go back after 
that experience. But lots of people who have never been exposed to it 
claim that it's not a very useful feature.

Well, I'm not going to force anyone to use it. I have it in RSX, and 
that is my weapon of choice anyway. Another reason not to move to VMS...

	Johnny

-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol