[Info-vax] VMS and the Internet of Things (IoT)

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Den 2016-09-11 kl. 15:23, skrev Kerry Main:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On
>> Behalf Of Jan-Erik Soderholm via Info-vax

With due respect, I didn't wrote one single word of the
texts below...

Jan-Erik.


>> Sent: 11-Sep-16 7:03 AM
>> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
>> Cc: Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] VMS and the Internet of Things
>> (IoT)
>>
>> Den 2016-09-11 kl. 12:16, skrev Simon Clubley:
>>> I've seen a number of posts recently about VMS and
> it's
>> possible role
>>> in an Internet of Things (IoT) environment.
>>>
>>> However, it appears to me that people are talking at
>> cross-purposes
>>> when talking about the IoT because the term itself is
> so
>> vaguely
>>> defined and as such people appear to have their own
>> differing and
>>> unstated assumptions about what the IoT actually is.
>>>
>>> As such, it might be a good idea if people state what
>> they mean by
>>> the IoT and how they see the role that VMS has in it,
>> because right
>>> now I am not seeing a major role for VMS.
>>>
>>> Here's my initial pass at defining what I think the
> IoT is all
>> about
>>> when I hear that phrase and why I think the above
>> about VMS:
>>>
>>> I think of the IoT as being a three level architecture
> with
>> sensors
>>> on devices at the lowest level, some kind of
> coordinator
>> or
>>> controller within the facility at the medium level,
> and
>> remote
>>> servers (if needed) at the highest level.
>>>
>>> At the lowest level, the sensors on devices level,
> there's
>> absolutely
>>> no role for VMS at all. Most of these are going to be
>> Cortex-M0/M4
>>> level CPUs if even that as in some cases these might
> just
>> be small
>>> 8-bit devices or even dumb sensors wired directly into
>> the facility
>>> controller.
>>>
>>> The medium level facility controller is where things
> may
>> start to get
>>> more interesting but I don't see a role for VMS here
>> either even if
>>> you ignore that fact that VMS will not currently run
> on
>> the
>>> architectures typically in use here.
>>>
>
> My references to OpenVMS and IoT were in respect to
> OpenVMS and future architectures - coming (X86-64) and
> potential (ARM). This would be post OpenVMS V9+ (ARM -
> V10?) - after the new file system and new TCPIP stack.
> X86-64 in small boxes/appliances are valid thin "smart"
> clients just as much as lower power ARM devices in even
> smaller thin client "smart" devices are likely.
>
> While there are some niche players in this thin smart
> client market, the big OS to beat for OpenVMS on these
> smaller devices is obviously Linux. Microsoft is on a
> self-destruct model and is following in the DEC footsteps
> of upsetting Customers and raising prices through the roof
> at a time when Customers are under extreme pressures to
> reduce IT costs. I see Microsoft share of the server
> market dropping significantly in the future. Also,
> OpenVMS/Linux can boot and run their latest versions in
> 1GB of memory (or less my Alpha servers boot latest
> supported versions in 256MB) - try that with any version
> of Windows Servers (or desktop).
>
> 110% pure speculation on my part, but I also suspect there
> will be new licensing model options in OpenVMS V9+.
>
> I stated "secure" thin client, because at some point, this
> will need to happen. You cannot have driver-less cars or
> smart traffic light systems being hacked. Unfortunately,
> like what all too often happens, in the rush to get
> products out the door and be first to market, the last
> thing on developers/companies minds is security. As we all
> know here, real security needs to be architected into the
> entire solution - not added on later.
>
> The more tiers, the higher risk of the secure chain being
> breached. When "smart" thin clients are combined with
> other technologies like IPV6 (low level thin client
> devices can be identified by MAC addresses), it gets a lot
> more interesting in terms of consolidating multiple
> network tiers and returning more to a traditional secure
> thin "smart" client and secure back ends.
>
> Yes, IPV6 has been slow to be adopted, and there will be
> security issues with IPV6 to be addressed, but it is
> coming. There are no other feasible options to replace
> IPV4.
>
> Btw -  as I stated in my earlier thread, this is a lot of
> hype bundled in with this term IoT - you can literally
> define it anyway you like. That's what everyone including
> media analysts and vendors do anyway.
>
> This is not unlike Public Clouds, OpenStack, Software
> Defined Networks (SDN), and early industry hype of SOA
> (granted, SOA does have technical validity, but not in the
> way most of the industry hyped it for years i.e. SOA
> everything).
>
> [snip..]
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kerry Main
> Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com
>
>
>
>
>