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

[Dave Froble]

On 5/31/2018 11:55 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2018-05-31 kl. 17:51, skrev Dave Froble:
>> On 5/31/2018 7:38 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> My point was that there is little difference between desktop and
>>> server systems today and writing either off is a bad decision.  Can it
>>> really be that hard  to write a device driver for a limited set of
>>> graphics cards?  Remember, we are not looking at taking over the
>>> gaming market (VMS could not do that graphics support or not!!)
>>
>> In the past it has been rather hard to write the graphics device
>> drivers. In no small part to the secrecy practiced by some graphics card
>> mfgs.  I've read that some of that secrecy is less of a problem
>> recently.
>>
>> Also, remember past practices.  If the graphics mfgs wanted to sell into
>>  the weendoze market, they, not Microsoft, wrote the drivers.  It
>> appears they have no such desire for VMS.
>>
>> Didn't help that a new device would be produced every couple of months.
>>
>> I've read about some issues with Linux at times, with poor or no support
>>  for certain graphics devices.
>>
>> So, yes, it just might be that hard to produce graphics device drivers
>> for VMS, even a limited set.
>>
>> One might wish it was otherwise, but, it is what it is.
>>
>
> Right, I have to ask...
>
> Exacelly *what* would you use a graphic driver for in VMS?

VSI has mentioned that there would be enough graphics to drive a 
monitor.  That is a graphics driver.  Perhaps not for the latest nvidia 
or AMD have to offer, but, still graphics.

Now, I know nothing, but, there has been use of the compute engines in 
graphics cards to do floating point stuff.  It can greatly enhance the 
performance of a computer.  Might be nice to have, huh?

> Why would anyone (apart from hobbyists) want that?

Workstations for CAD and such sure need good graphics.  Not saying it's 
a market for VMS.  Lots of reasons for graphics, unless you're stuck on 
a serial port and a terminal.

> Why whould VSI spend resourses on this?

I don't think they have much choice.  Just don't look for them to 
support every graphics device available.

> Development for VMS will in the future not be done on VMS anyway.
> Not if you like modern and full-featured tools anyway...

Somehow I don't understand that concept.  I'm assuming there will still 
be compilers and the linker.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But it doesn't make much 
sense to write cross compilers when a VMS system is much simpler.

I've always maintained that VMS has had a rather rich development 
environment, with many languages.  Perhaps not so many anymore, but, my 
opinion is that it's still a good development environment.

Bells and whistles do not produce good software.  Good design and 
implementation is what's required.  VMS still allows such.