[Info-vax] Programming languages on VMS

[DaveFroble]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 02/09/2018 11:18 PM, DaveFroble wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> And, as a necessary expense one would expect it would constantly come
> under scrutiny as to whether or not there is a better (read more
> economical) option.
> 
>>
>> The purpose of a mfg company is to produce goods, which are sold, thus 
>> creating profits.
> 
> Based on how many of these companies are wasting so much money on crap
> like the Olympics and social engineering one might doubt if that was
> true.
> 
>>
>> 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?  
> 
> Long list for this one.
>   1) Old system is getting harder (and more expensive) to maintain
>   2) Daily operation is potentially costing more because of the
>      inefficiency of the system compared to something more modern
>   3) potential for a catastrophic failure due to the age of the
>      equipment
> 
> And the list goes on and on.
> 
>>                   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.
> 
> Of course it does.  If what you said was true there would still be
> piles of PDP-11's, Prime 50-series and IBM 360's running out there.
> There aren't, why?
> 
>>
>> So, replacement of the entire system just isn't going to happen.
> 
> Bad logic.  Especially in the case of something like the aforementioned
> catastrophic failure.
> 
>>
>> The IT system(s) are there to run the company, 
> 
> And for that reason alone they have to be reliable, well maintained and
> easily returned to operation in the event of a failure.
> 
>>                                                 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.  
> 
> Now your sounding like certain others in this group.
> 
>>                                                   The company is not 
>> there for such to ruin a working system.
> No, but they are there to ensure the continued operation of those
> systems.  And if they see the current system as unreliable and not
> easily maintained it is their job to make thast point known.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Not as often as you seem to think.  And just because they produce
> evidence that the old system is obsolete doesn't mean they are wrong
> or don;t have the companies best interests at heart.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Like most of these doom and gloom stories I am sure there were numerous
> other reasons why the company failed to compete.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> That is done in some cases (General Dynamics and COBOL Programmers).
> But it won't save cost cause by running old and inefficient hardware.
> And, it won't keep the system running when support is no longer
> provided.
> 
> Let me provide a counter to your Easton story.  Ever hear of a
> children's magazine called Highlights?  Local company.  About 10
> miles up the road from here. When I first came back to this area
> to work at the University they were a PDP-11/RSTS shop.  Then, one
> day, all of the PDP-11's rolled out as a donation to the University.
> Don't know what replaced them, but my guess would be PC's.  No
> downtime.  Magazines continued to roll out and the company is still
> thriving today.  (as a side note, I now this because all the University
> wanted were the RA drives to hook up to the VAX they were running. I
> got all the PDP-11's and RL disk drives.  They were my first personal
> systems and I can assure you not only did they work when I got them
> but continued to work for more than a decade at which time I donated
> them to a computer museum and to the best of my knowledge still run
> today!!)
> 
> 
> Like most things systems age.  And replacement becomes necessary even
> if they are still running.  As I have mentioned in the past, I have an
> MGB.  Car runs fine.  But I wouldn't want to rely on it as my primary
> means of transportation. I could go out tomorrow and find it won't
> start and while parts are generally available some parts are not
> available short of having them machined and even the ones that are
> available could take days to weeks to acquire.  How many businesses
> could survive those conditions in their IT System?
> 
> bill

Good job Bill, you managed to mention just about everything that doesn't apply 
to what I wrote.

The company was very competitive.

VMS is still running today, on new HW.

The applications were a very good fit.

But, when someone blows millions, with a company that cannot afford to do so, 
just maybe that is a problem?  No, couldn't be, your speculation must be so.

-- 
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