[Info-vax] The best VMS features, was: Re: openvms renaming file

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 05/29/2018 11:07 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/29/2018 8:05 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 5/29/2018 5:31 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2018 5:19 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> In article <pek49d$2kp$1 at dont-email.me>, "Robert A. Brooks"
>>>> <FIRST.LAST at vmssoftware.com> writes:
>>>>>>> I mentioned this before but I will repeat it. A while back I
>>>>>>> eliminated
>>>>>>> the annoying 24 line terminal assumption from EDT and released it
>>>>>>> internally (to VSI). After then a few people came up to me and
>>>>>>> thanked
>>>>>>> me for doing so. It was almost like being at an AA meeting, with
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> saying: "My name is Joe Smith, and...and I use EDT" followed by a
>>>>>>> thank
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another reason I am waiting for VMS on x86.  It WILL be part of the
>>>>>> distribution, right?
>>>>> It will make its appearance in VMS V8.5.
>>>>
>>>> Can't wait!
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to the old days, most hobbyists will not have a chance to
>>>> experience VMS on x86.  Many won't buy a supported machine, at least 
>>>> not
>>>> right away.
>>>
>>> As has been said before, many times -- we expect that VMS will play
>>> quite nicely with a few hypervisors.  VirtualBox at first, and KVM
>>> soon after, if not immediately.
>>
>> And besides.
>>
>> A hobbyist does not need the HW to be supported just that it work.
>>
>> Are there any reason to believe that VMS x86-64 will not run on
>> any standard HW or standard VM's?
>>
>> Run meaning being usable potentially with a few funky
>> effects: certain hardware being identified as UNKNOWN,
>> VM's not releasing CPU when VMS is idle and stuff like
>> that.
>>
>> And of course VSI will not take any bug reports.
>>
>> Similar to VMS on Multia some decades ago.
>>
>> Arne
>>
>>
> 
> Any problems with specific HW will most likely be the lack of 
> appropriate device drivers.  Even Microsoft no longer supports all 
> devices.  They support many, and I doubt VSI will match that.
> 
> Since VMS is a "server" OS, this might not be a huge problem.  Many of 
> the devices are graphics.  Being able to support generic graphics should 
> be enough.

This is a bad mindset to prolong.  It shows a indset willing to
give up a major piece of the market.  Windows and Linux are both
Server and Desktop OSes and there is really very little difference
between the two versions under both OSes. (The BSD's fall into
this category as well but they abdicated any serious position in
the IT business world ages ago.  And look what it got them!)
Other than graphics support, which VMS had for a long time, there
is little else needed to be a desktop system. It is primarily in
the applications you run.  Because the supported hardware is going
to be limited anyway, why  not include an equally limited number
of supported graphics devices?  It's the way it was done in the
past when VMS had a desktop presence and could work just as well
today. (Or is it tomorrow as we are talking about the x86-64 port?)

bill