[Info-vax] Internationalization

[Dave Froble]

On 12/31/2018 1:04 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.

I agree 100%, and it's not if, it's when.

>>>> 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.

Software is something VSI can do something about.  So far I've not seen 
them say one word about hardware.

>> 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.

Well, I think some reasons have been mentioned in the past, more than 
once.  If one is in that boat, when it springs a leak, they are in a lot 
of trouble.

Having re-buildable sources goes a long way toward moving to x86.  Since 
Jan-Erik does work for his customer, I'd guess sources exist.  There can 
be other obsticles, however, when x86 VMS becomes available, when 
possible, exploring a move to the new HW should be the effort all 
current VMS users make.

When that day comes, one has to figure that when VSI has a choice to 
make, work on old platforms, or enhance x86 on VMS, there is only one 
reasonable choice for them, absent someone with very big bucks and a 
desire to spend them with VSI.


-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486