[Info-vax] Modular VMS, was: Re: Prism/Pillar, was: Re: inertia or fundamentals about langages?

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2019-05-29 23:41:15 +0000, Dave Froble said:

> On 5/29/2019 2:11 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2019-05-29, Stephen Hoffman <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Donno.  I've always called it "modular", though "modular monolithic" 
>>> might be closer to current terminology.
> 
> Does terminology change what something is?  I doubt that.

For a broad audience, terminology makes that something either easier or 
harder to find, and can also make that something either easier or 
harder to understand.

>> The XQP cannot be extended by the end user so they can't plug in new 
>> filesystems, either in the kernel or within a process.
> 
> Depends ....
> 
>> You know the following, but for those who don't, take a look at the 
>> examples of what you can do in Unix-land:
> 
> Not interested.

There's more than file systems that can be exposed this way.  What if 
you could connect to a database behind that?  Yeah, probably not a 
priority for many.  Makes a very interesting way to access a database 
or a version control system or such, and I've encountered at least one 
package that did just this; that presented the contents of a version 
control system as a file system: ClearCase, with what was referred to 
as a VOB or Virtual Object Base,  It was really quite slick, too.

>> The terminal driver code is so yucky and unchangable that you can't 
>> even edit lines that wrap a line boundary. In 2019/2009/1999, that's 
>> crazy.
> 
> Really hacked up, yeah.  But not all of us get so upset about command 
> line editing.

Yeah; not a make-or-break, but yet another hassle of many.

I use a terminal width of ~250 or so, which reduces the exposure to 
that.  And I can edit using the terminal emulator recall buffer, if 
necessary.  Workarounds all, yes.

The "fun" with the terminal driver is an accretion of 40 years of 
legacy hardware and software compatibility.   Forrest has commented on 
"some of the ugliest macro code you are going to find" on various 
occasions.  4,600 lines of Macro32 editing at device IPL in kernel mode 
is just asking for problems, too. Fodder for fuzzing, certainly.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.vms/2URw3twynok/8l8HqsaAIBAJ


>> You can't swap out the system supplied shell (DCL) with another shell 
>> supplied by the user due to the heavy integration of DCL into the VMS 
>> way of doing things and due to the total lack of documentation about 
>> how to write a replacement login-level shell.
> 
> Well, you could, but there is that lack of documentation.  The original 
> design was to allow for multiple CLIs.  The second one just never 
> happened.

The MCR, DCL, and DEC/shell CLIs all happened, and it wouldn't be 
surprising to learn of other implementations.

>> When you only know VMS, then I suppose everything looks ok and you 
>> don't see a problem. When you know other operating systems however, 
>> that's when you _really_ see what VMS is missing.
> 
> And what VMS has.  It goes both ways.

By all appearances, what OpenVMS has to offer hasn't been particularly 
attractive to new developers and new apps.  Works well for many 
existing apps, certainly.

>> ...Sooner or later, VSI is going to have to tackle the problem of 
>> trying to sell VMS to new sites in order to continue growing.
>> 
>> When you look at VMS as it stands today and in the future, what do you 
>> tell those potential new sites to persuade them to have a go at 
>> evaluating VMS ?
>> 
>> What do you tell them when they ask why they should look at VMS instead 
>> of other operating systems they are more familiar with and which have 
>> features they are familiar with ?
> 
> I don't know that it matters.

For existing OpenVMS customers and ISVs, that's fodder for the usual 
discussions and comparisons around porting apps off of OpenVMS.   For 
potential new customers and new ISVs, that's fodder for comparisons.  
Porting commercial apps off of OpenVMS is still happening.  Porting 
commercial apps onto OpenVMS is rather less common in recent times, but 
it's also something that the folks from VSI want.

> Some people are so ties into the *ix ways that they could not accept 
> anything else.
> 
> What do you tell WEENDOZE users to get them to look at anything else?

That's the installed base inertia.

Current Windows 10 is looking increasingly inviting, with the Microsoft 
work going into SFL.

ps: on the subject of CLIs, some calls to the sys$cli system service 
are (were?) documented.  Proof:
ftp://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/www.computer.museum.uq.edu.au/pdf/AA-D015B-TE%20VAX-VMS%20Release%20Notes.pdf 


An additional example:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.vms/sH7ZZQqNHWw/4x3rXatCBAAJ



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC