[Info-vax] Any stronger versions of the LMF planned ?, was: Re: LMF Licence

[chris]

On 08/09/21 22:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/9/21 5:12 PM, chris wrote:
>> On 08/09/21 21:35, John Dallman wrote:
>>> In article<serrmi$1akh$1 at gioia.aioe.org>, chris-nospam at tridac.net
>>> (chris)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/09/21 19:04, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2021 1:37 PM, chris wrote:
>>>>>> Perhaps so, but desn't change the fact that Oracle have made a
>>>>>> support only business model a success, Linux or Solaris. A vast
>>>>>> range of s/w from that site, same business.
>>>
>>> Oracle are not primarily in the OS business. Nor were Sun.
>>>
>>> Sun were in the hardware business, and became non-viable when commodity
>>> hardware with Linux became far more cost-effective than their own
>>> hardware with Solaris.
>>>
>>> Oracle are in the database software business. The database is free to
>>> evaluate, but /not/ to use for commercial production work.
>>
>> Of course, all that is public knowledge and here at least, have been
>> using Sun kit for far longer than vms. That's sad, because VMS was the
>> first serious OS I worked with and I really liked it. At least with
>> some other proprietary systems, I can evaluate at no cost and use them
>> without limit for non commercial purposes. More likely to find something
>> to recommend to clients under such conditions.
>>
>>>
>>>> Of course, but we are not suggesting that and in any case, Oracle
>>>> always have, right back to the days of Sun, done all the Solaris
>>>> development in house, millions of $, but have made money from it
>>>> none the less.
>>>
>>> They seem to have rather lower levels of spending on that these days.
>>
>> Yes, nothing stays the same, but still doesn't negate the point I was
>> trying to make about successful software licensing models...
>>
>
> Anybody here know what licensing model Unisys uses? They don't call
> it a Hobbyist Program but I have Unisys 2200 running on Intel here.
> Works under Windows or Linux. Just like the days when I did Univac
> 1100 running Exec-8. Still supports the 68/74 COBOL compiler I used
> when I did this every day.
>
> bill
>

Perhaps no one really cares about a few enthusiasts running older
operating systems. I have several pdp and vax machines, where
there are none of the original DEC os's available to run
legally. I can run several versions of unix from the unix
historical society, but no DEC os's, making all that older
hardware orphans. Did a lot of work on PDP and vax machines
years ago, but no provision now and even have some RA60 packs
full of that work, but are any RA60 drives alive now ?. Maybe
in the US, but not in the uk. I'm sure all this has been done
to death in the past here, but no solution, it seems...