[Info-vax] Internationalization

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/31/18 11:36 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/31/2018 7:00 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>> Den 2018-12-31 kl. 08:14, skrev Dave Froble:
>>> On 12/30/2018 8:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2018-12-30, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/2018 4:46 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> VAX, Alpha or Itanium are unlikely to see any work on UTF-8, and
>>>>>> certainly not until well after the x86-64 port and a pile or three of
>>>>>> other work is completed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no new VAX, Alpha, or itanic chips.  They are DEAD!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless there's something I am unaware of, you can still buy new
>>>> Itanium systems.
>>>
>>> For a short time, yes, but not for long.
>>>
>>>>> If anyone was to put significant work into any of those three
>>>>> environments, they're probably also asking to be dead.  There is no
>>>>> known (to me) reasons for any such activity.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on VSI's offerings, there is clearly still a need for supported
>>>> Alpha systems. It doesn't matter that the Alphas might be emulated
>>>> Alpha systems because it means people are still running Alpha based
>>>> code in production.
>>>
>>> VSI has already addressed this, with Versions 8.4 2L1 and 2L2.  These
>>> are VSI releases, not HP releases, which takes HP(e) out of the
>>> picture.  While they may have on on going releases,
>>
>> Can you explain that "may have on on going releases".
> 
> No Nan-Erik, I'm not VSI.  I cannot say what they might do.  I can make 
> some guesses.
> 
>>> they have already addressed the need to have their own release.  Short
>>> term, this is good.  Long term, after the port is completed, the goal
>>> will be to have everyone possible on x86 systems.
>>>
>>
>> We are currently on Alpha 8.4-2L2 but note that both 8.5 (the release
>> that includes the new VSI TCPIP V10.6) and 9.2 (the first production
>> release for x86-64) are part of the roadmap for Alpha.
>>
>> It is somewhat questionable if our environment ever will be on x86.
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you are running on obsolete hardware that is no longer
being manufactured, seriously broke is just around the
corner.  And for those who say, "Well, I  have lots of
spares on the shelf."  I had "lots of spares on the shelf"
for a number of systems I used to use.  I can't even
count the number of them that came "off the shelf" only
to be non-functional.  If it's a hobby, no big deal, but
if your business depends on it, one can not live in the
past.


> 
>>> And yes, there may be those stuck on Alpha.
>>>
>>>> Of course, it's possible that the systems are effectively frozen
>>>> (apart from, say, security patches), but I wonder if anyone is
>>>> wanting to run new applications, or to extend existing applications,
>>>> on their Alpha systems ?
>>>
>>> There isn't, as far as I can see, a good reason to do so.
>>>
>>> But, what do I know ??????
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>>
>>
>> Well, the world does not stand still. We have a long list of development
>> projects on our Alpha environment. Both updates to the current apps but
>> also new applications.
>>
>> And I do not think that the Alpha offer from VSI was put together only
>> for us, so there must be a conciderable number of similar sites.
> 
> I think that there may be more sites running old Alphas than anything 
> else.  For sure there were enough for VSI to decide they needed an Alpha 
> release of their own.  As "their own" HP is out of the picture.
> 
> I'm rather sure that the first build of "their own" would be the most 
> labor intensive.  While additional releases will have some cost to VSI, 
> most likely not near as much, and so perhaps there will be further Alpha 
> releases.

Software availability is only one term of the equation.  The one
easily fixed.  The hardware is not going to be around for much
longer.

> 
> If there is a significant number of sites using Alpha VMS, who are 
> willing to pay for support, that's chunk of change that VSI needs to 
> consider and go after.
> 
> You mentioned perhaps never going off Alpha.  Can you suggest reasons 
> for that?  DEC made some very reliable stuff, but, in time the costs and 
> efforts will increase.  I guess my question is, do reasons for not using 
> x86 when it's available exist?

A better question would be do (valid) reasons for staying
on Alpha once a viable alternative is there exist.

bill