[Info-vax] Programming languages on VMS

[DaveFroble]

Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2018-02-09 22:49:12 +0000, Jan-Erik Soderholm said:
> 
>> Why would it not be "restorable"? Yes, we have some fairly static data 
>> still in RMS files (shouold be moved into Rdb). This is of course 
>> highly site specific and each environment has to evaluate the possible 
>> risks in getting some files that are "out of sync". It is all about 
>> risk analysing.
> 
> Because it's been my experience that online backups are less than 
> transparently restorable, and files captured with /IGNORE=INTERLOCK are 
> not guaranteed internal consistency nor are related files necessarily 
> captured consistently across other related files.
> 
> But I'm really not interested in bringing your site forward, as it's 
> very clear you're not interested in that task.
> 
>> Right. I see backup/restore of the file system, and backup/restore of 
>> the/a database as two separate entities. The backup of Rdb through 
>> RMU/BACKUP and RMU/RESTORE (including handling of AIJ journaling 
>> files) is quite different from regular backups of your file system.
> 
> No, it's not.   It's only different because there's been effectively 
> zero thought given to this whole area and there's been a pile of 
> disparate pieces patched and otherwise taped together over the decades.
> 
>> OK, right. If you think that giving the system *one* command to 
>> restore what has been deleted by accident, as "a whole lot of work". 
>> Fine. Hard to argue there... :-)
> 
> That's because you haven't used the tools that others have.  Which in 
> various cases involves little more than "here's the target device or 
> target server for backups, have at" and the backups then defaulting to 
> and taking care of everything else, including frequency and pruning 
> among other details.
> 
>> Work by me or by the system? There is one script running each night 
>> doing the backups. This has been running with some minor changes since 
>> 2010 (when we switched from local tape station with weekly manual tape 
>> changes) to:
> 
> Can't say I find creating backup scripts and dealing with tapes and tape 
> libraries entirely straightforward nor particularly easy, but then 
> that's me.   In comparison with the complexity of OpenVMS, the 
> capabilities and the simplicity of Time Machine was a pleasant surprise, 
> for instance.
> 
>> *I* think that you are often exaggerating that OpenVMS is that far 
>> behind in many areas.
> 
> What I mention is already available and already in use.   Servers and 
> enterprise gear does commonly tend to trail what's available, and for 
> various reasons.  But expectations can and do shift.
> 
>> The *main*, as I see it, problem is that many of those working with 
>> OpenVMS have let *themselves* falling behind when it comes to what is 
>> happening in the IT business.
> 
> Have you considered how you yourself and your systems fit into that?  
> Have you pondered how you'd replace your entire system from within and 
> incrementally, and how you'd work to get there?

Ok, here is where some of these arguments fall apart.

Consider a mfg company, which is what Jan Erik has.  IT is a necessary expense. 
  Not directly something that produces income.

The purpose of a mfg company is to produce goods, which are sold, thus creating 
profits.

Now, if, and that is a valid question, the IT system is meeting the company's 
requirements, why would the company waste money to replace their IT system?  As 
requirements change, the system(s) can be modified to reflect changing 
requirements.  But rarely, if ever, will things change so much that the current 
IT system is so far away from requirements.  It just doesn't happen.

So, replacement of the entire system just isn't going to happen.

The IT system(s) are there to run the company, not as a daycare for those "new 
people" in IT that want to practice the rubbish they were taught in the learned 
halls of higher education.  The company is not there for such to ruin a working 
system.

Yes, I'm aware that at times an idiot is put in charge.  An idiot that thinks he 
knows all, and is going to make his mark by throwing out the working system(s) 
and isn't stopped before he destroys the company.

This happened at one of my previous customers.  Easton Sports was the 
distribution sub-division of Easton Aluminum, a company that mfg among other 
things aluminum baseball bats.  An innovative company that was doing well. 
However, the parent company brought in this idiot from one of the large 
accounting firms, and he brought in some of these young people who just knew 
that what must happen was to be a 100% Microsoft shop.  When people on the 
distribution side, who realized what a disaster was about to happen and spoke 
up, the idiot shut down the distribution sub-division and brought the work into 
the parent company.  And yes, they threw out what was working, and spent 
millions trying to replace it.  One forecasting system had three attempts to 
replace it, and failed every time.  But the idiot never wavered from his "know 
it all" attitude.  I'm sure he's screwing up at other places, but, don't look 
for Easton Aluminum, it doesn't exist anymore.

If a company has a working solution, if they need new people to work with it, 
and such don't exist, then they will train them.

> Expectations and experience here differs, too.   Some folks only know 
> OpenVMS and Windows.   Some folks and some apps are cruising into 
> retirement.  Some folks and some apps have effectively retired in 
> place.  Other folks and other apps...  are headed to other platforms and 
> tools.   As is typical.   OpenVMS needs to attract enough new folks and 
> new apps to offset the inevitable losses.  What we have now with OpenVMS 
> is not all that and a bag of chips.
> 
>> Such as believing that Windows (and its supplier) is some kind of 
>> “enemy”, that only adds to the view that VMS (and in particular those 
>> who works with it) are fossils.
> 
> Microsoft is a good source of ideas, some to emulate and some to avoid. 
>  They're also very far from the only source of ideas in this business, 
> good and bad.   OpenVMS is never going to directly complete with Windows 
> nor replace Windows Server, and OpenVMS will have to coexist with for 
> the foreseeable future, and preferably far better than it does now with 
> features added such as with support for current SMB clients and servers, 
> and far better Active Directory integration.   It'd be handy to have a 
> way to write backups to SMB shares and to allow those same backups to be 
> restored and reused without the current rigamarole usually required, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
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