[Info-vax] Vax Station 4000 VLC

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/26/18 9:05 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2018-12-26 kl. 14:47, skrev Bill Gunshannon:
>> On 12/26/18 7:01 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> Den 2018-12-26 kl. 10:06, skrev Phillip Helbig (undress to reply):
>>>> In article <pvudfi$ouc$1 at dont-email.me>,
>>>> =?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com>
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> If you have your VMS system accessed in a terminal window or a tab
>>>>> in your browser, you do not have to "go to a different machine" to
>>>>> access anything else from the web. Or write a Word document. Or
>>>>> check your mails on the corporate MS Exchange systems.
>>>>
>>>> It starts when you download something in a web browser.  If I want that
>>>> file on VMS, if I have no browser on VMS, I have to transfer it from
>>>> another machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Extremely easy to do. Usually just a single (S)FTP copy. It's not
>>> like you have to carry around a disk-pack or something...
>>>
>>> Constantly asking for special treatment (browsers, keyboards and such)
>>> just to use a VMS system, is not doing VMS any good. 
>>
>> Not providing the same level of service provided by all of VMS's
>> competitors is not doing VMS any good, either.
>>
> 
> Who expects the "same level of services" from a server OS and a
> client/desktop OS? Who expects "the same level of services" (what
> ever that is) from Windows and zOS?

Windows is the "level of service" VMS has to compete with.  Whether
you like it or not, it is a fact.

> 
> Who are VMS's competitors? Now desktop versions of Windows and Linux.

Primarily.  Certainly not zOS as the days when the VAX was going to
be a mainframe killer just never arrived.

> 
> 
>>>                                                       VMS has to play
>>> along using the same interfaces and equipment (such as keyboard layouts
>>> according to standard client equipment) that is used anywhere else.
>>> Otherwise VMS will just be seen as something that it’s better to get
>>> rid of. 
>>
>> You are assuming that VMS "is seen" in the first place.
> 
> It is where it it is currently used. Why upset them?

Why would increased functionality upset them?  But, if you
think VMS can survive on the existing (and dwindling) user
base it now has, well......

bill