[Info-vax] VMS Features I Wish Linux Had

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Den 2016-06-12 kl. 14:12, skrev 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,

I'd guess that 1 or 2 out of 1.000 VMS "users" are exposed to DCL.

> 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

Not me. :-)

> have asked for improvements and replacements for DCL, and now suddenly
> everyone...

Doesn't seem to be "everyone", see the threads you quoted above. :-)

> 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.

I have never said that it isn't a good thing. I'm just saying that 99%
of our "VMS users" couldn't care less. My customer don't care if this
would be nice for *me* to have, if it doesn't make any difference
for their factory.


> But lots of people who have never been exposed to it claim that
> it's not a very useful feature.
>

I have never it isn't a useful feature. It just doesn't matter.

> 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...

Most seems to have a hard time getting their sites *stying* with VMS... :-)

Jan-Erik.


>
>     Johnny
>