[Info-vax] Licenses on VAX/VMS 4.0/4.1 source code listing scans

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/13/21 1:53 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/12/2021 9:22 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/11/21 7:38 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2021 7:12 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/21 2:25 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 12/11/2021 1:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/11/21 11:51 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>>> And all the largest systems are distributed. They use
>>>>>>> Hadoop, Cassandra, Kafka etc.. Traditional technologies
>>>>>>> does simply not scale to that level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You wanna bet?  While some of the frontend stuff has mofrated to
>>>>>> the typical web crap the IRS for example is still a Unisys OS2200
>>>>>> shop with the code being mostly Legacy ACOB carried forward from
>>>>>> its origination on a UNIVAC 1100.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. And that system may have been a big system 30 years ago.
>>>>
>>>> The US IRS is one of the biggest ISes in the world.  Large enough
>>>> that some of the biggest contracting companies in the United States
>>>> looked at an RFP to replace it and said it probably couldn't be
>>>> done.  And so it is still written mostly in COBOL running on Unisys
>>>> OS2200.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But today large systems are NNN/NNNN nodes, NNNN CPU's, N/NN TB 
>>>>> memory and N PB disk.
>>>>
>>>> In what way does that contradict what I said above?  Or are you one
>>>> of those people who think IBM Mainframe still means 360/40.
>>>
>>> A z15 max out at 24 CPU with 190 cores for application and OS
>>> and 40 TB memory 192 IO cards.
>>>
>>> The largest Unisys (the 8300) is as far as I can read only
>>> 8 CPU with 64 cores for application and OS and 512 GB of memory.
>>>
>>> It just doesn't scale to what companies with large data processing
>>> requirements need today.
>>>
>>> 11 years ago(!) the largest Hadoop cluster had 2000 CPU with 22400
>>> cores, 64 TB memory and 21 PB data on disk.
>>
>> And yet the IRS is doing it just fine.  Go figure.
> 
> Sure. They got a mid-size problem and their system capable
> of handling mid-size problems does fine.

Mid-size?  Do you have any iodea what the US IRS is and what they do?

> 
> Those that have a very large problem would not be fine.
> 
> Of course IRS could get the same mid-size capability for way
> less money on a different platform, but porting is probably
> expensive. And they do not have any competitors to worry about! :-)

Expense wasn't the problem.  They have pretty deep pockets. :-)
The problem was the ability to accomplish a port given the constraints
they run under.  Realize, of course, it was not the IRS that wanted
the "modernization"  Their system works just fine.  As is usually
the case it was outsiders (thinking much like it appears you do) who
were driving the bus.

> 
>> And then we have DFAS which is an IBM shop handles payroll for all
>> the military and civilians in DOD.  A bit more than any company I
>> can think  of.
>>
>> And then we also have the DOD EMR system.  Every member of the
>> military, all their dependents, all the retirees that are still
>> getting care at an MTF (like me!)  That's and IBM mainframe, too.
>> and the application is written in COBOL.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I suspect they fit pretty nicely with my original description:
> - is processing money
> - first version was written before 1995
> - has not been rewritten after 1995
> 
>> Seems that COBOL and mainframes are doing just fine.
> 
> IBM's mainframe revenue is decreasing over time (it spikes
> every year they release a new model and plummets when there
> is no new model, but the trend is downwards). Still significant
> money though.
> 
> Decreasing revenue is not doing fine.

Well, long after VSI ans VMS are gone I expect IBM and zSystems
(probably even iSystems) will still be around,  I seem to remember
that one of the original purposes of VAX and VMS  was to kill IBM's
small systems. Didn't happen.  The only company I know first hand
was trounced by DEC was Pr1me and that was more their fault than
DEC's.

> 
>> Just so you will know where I am coming from on this, there is
>> a strong move to push "modernization" of mainframes.  The current
>> definition of "modernization" is move to a different platform and
>> re-write all your applications in the language du jour.
> 
> My impression is that it is like:
> 
> 90% : too expensive and risky to port so stay
> 4%  : port to Cobol on Linux/Windows
> 4%  : port to Java on  Linux/Windows
> 2%  : port to C# on  Windows
> 
> (Java is from 1995 and C# is from 2002 so not anything new)
> 
> Arne

bill