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

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax
[mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com] On
> Behalf Of Simon Clubley via Info-vax
> Sent: 11-Sep-16 3:19 PM
> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> Cc: Simon Clubley
> <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] VMS and the Internet of
Things
> (IoT)
> 
> On 2016-09-11, Kerry Main
<kemain.nospam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Info-vax
[mailto:info-vax-bounces at rbnsn.com]
> On
> >> Behalf Of Simon Clubley via Info-vax
> >> Sent: 11-Sep-16 1:56 PM
> >> To: info-vax at rbnsn.com
> >> Cc: Simon Clubley
> >>
<clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
> >> Subject: Re: [Info-vax] VMS and the Internet
of Things
> >> (IoT)
> >>
> >> I'm confused. Are you suggesting that VMS can
occupy
> the
> >> middle tier
> >> in my 3 tier model and be the OS that runs
inside the
> >> controller box
> >> which is located within the facility itself
and which
> > talks
> >> directly
> >> to the sensors ?
> >>
> >> If that's the case, I'm curious how much
embedded
> >> knowledge you have
> >> because I am absolutely not seeing VMS as
being
> suitable
> >> for that
> >> position for these reasons:
> >>
> >> 1) It would have to run on ARM for one thing
(x86-64 is
> > so
> >> overpowered
> >> by comparison, and with power and hardware
space
> >> requirements to match,
> >> that it would be like using a supercomputer
to calculate
> >> your payroll),
> >>
> >
> > You missed my earlier comment in this thread -
> >
> > " 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. "
> >
> > [snip..]
> >
> 
> Having VMS run on ARM is only the first step.
> 
> VMS needs to be structured so that you can
create a BSP
> so VMS will
> run on your custom hardware and you need the
tools to,
> among other
> things, generate custom VMS images for your
hardware
> and application
> that you can burn to flash and run VMS and your
> application from that
> same flash.
> 
> VMS also needs to _seriously_ up it's game when
it comes
> to low
> level stuff such as device driver writing.
> 
> Then once you have done all this, you need to
ask what
> advantages
> does VMS have over the established embedded
players ?
> 
> BTW, Kerry, have you ever done any embedded
> development ?
> 
> Have you ever written any code which runs under
a RTOS
> and have you
> ever been through the process of generating a
custom
> RTOS image
> which includes your code to run on your own
hardware ?
> 

No, I'm not a programmer.

Having stated this, for over a decade or so,
OpenVMS was the defacto std for running process
control systems in many manufacturing
environments. The competition was HP-UX, but was
nowhere near as popular as OpenVMS.

It is still used in a number of manufacturing
environments that I know of like steel mills, chip
manufacturing and other mfging / utility
environments.

Btw, don't forget the IoT hype is not just about
embedded systems - its thin clients and there are
a wide range of devices that would likely not be
called embedded systems.

[snip ..]

> 
> PS: Please fix your line wrapping. You currently
look as if
> you are
> typing on a VIC20. :-)
> 

I recently upgraded my Outback client and the
external text wrapping is set lowered to 50.

Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com