[Info-vax] OpenVMS Hobbyist Notification

[Dave Froble]

On 3/8/2020 7:46 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2020-03-08 kl. 08:00, skrev Dave Froble:
>> On 3/7/2020 1:48 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2020 12:51 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/2020 11:01 AM, caoimhe at pitbulluk.org wrote:
>>>>> I don't think I'll be interested in the x86 port. I don't imagine VSI
>>>>> will be interested in writing device drivers for the plethora of
>>>>> cheaper desktop motherboards and PCIe adaptors most hobbyists will go
>>>>> for. It's going to be high-end mostly, although hyper-v and vmware
>>>>> driver development might work.
>>>>
>>>>> Besides which, the "State of the Port" seems almost laughable at
>>>>> present.
>>>>
>>>> I confess to curosity, why do you write that?  It seems to me they
>>>> (VSI) are trying to complete the port.
>>>>
>>>> One can hope that x86 VMS does not run exclusively on high end
>>>> expensive hardware.
>>>>
>>>> However, they say it will run on VirtualBox, and I'd think that for
>>>> any hobbyist, as well as others, this might be enough.
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> The virtualization software exposes something standard and
>>> VMS just use that.
>>>
>>> Hobbyists and developers may be using VirtualBox.
>>>
>>> Production may run on VMWare.
>>>
>>> Very few will run on bare metal.
>>
>> I'm doubting that.  Most VMS users are used to running on what we're
>> now calling "bare metal".
>
> Becuse there was/is no other option. Not becuse it was desired or
> asked for.
>
>> I'm thinking most will continue to do so.
>
> Yes, those that will continue on Alpha or Itanium.
> But I'm sure that Arne wrote about future VMS/x86-64 users.
>
>> Why introduce the complexity of using a VM when it's not necessary or
>> desired?
>
> Becuse it is desired by the IT operation architects where you
> run your VMS systems. Anything *not* running in an VM is looked
> at as something that is weird and that should be decomissioned.
>
>> Even so, some will do just that.
>
> Alpha and Itanium will continue on "bare metal". The majority of
> VMS/x86-64 will probably run in an VM. Developers using VirtualBox
> on a laptop, production in VMware (or any other supported VMs) in a
> large server environment. Becuse it is just much simpler.
>
> VMs do have there issues, but that is something that todays IT
> operation decission makers seems to be willing to handle.
>
>> Else, who's been asking for VMware?
>> Using a VM is not all good.  Some will not want another layer involved.
>
> For the VMS system manager, it is not another layer. It is just that
> what VMS sees as the "host" is not a physical box, it is a VM. Doesn't
> make any major difference. When you are within VMS, running your
> applications, there is no visible difference.
>
> When you need an additional VMS "server", instead of waiting 1-2 weeks
> for a server to be delivered, you wait an hour for your VMware support
> group to create a new VM.
>
> And, as a developer, if you need a extra test system, you create a new
> VirtualBox VM on your laptop.

And if you're real time running a line in a steel mill, or the very many 
other uses one might encounter?

There are many places where a VM instance is acceptable.  Just as there 
will be places where it is not.

I know that for my Codis customers, running a VM is not what they do 
now.  For them, it's another added complexity they might not desire.  Or 
perhaps some will wish to use VMs.  But to declare that using VMs is 
sort of automatic is premature and just a prejudiced wild ass guess.

I don't want to sound like Roland, but "the world according to Arne" 
isn't always factual.

-- 
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