[Info-vax] WHY IS VSI REQUIRING A HYPERVISOR FOR X86 OPENVMS?

[Andrew Brehm]

On 11/01/2021 13:22, D W wrote:
> On Friday, January 8, 2021 at 3:02:53 PM UTC-5, Andrew Brehm wrote:
>> On 31/12/2020 19:50, D W wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 31, 2020 at 12:07:41 PM UTC-5, Andrew Brehm wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't see the problem. How would Linux patches affect OpenVMS
>>>> running in a virtualised environment?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure you understand virtualisation correctly.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Andrew Brehm
>>>
>>> I understand VMs just fine. The linux kernal is inherently flawed as is windoze.
>>
>> If you understand just fine, why are you talking about Linux and
>> Windows? VMware vSphere uses neither. You can also use a BSD-based
>> hypervisor or Xen using NetBSD for drivers. All these methods keep you
>> away from Linux and Windows.
>>
>>
>>> As for hardware failures I would I think OpenVMS clustering is a far superior solution than the VM solution.
>>>
>>
>> No. With vSphere you can even run an OS instance on two physical
>> machines at once. If one of them fails, all those VMs will keep running
>> on the other metal. There will not be any interruption.
>>
>> For planned hardware outages, you can migrate running VMs to other hardware.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Andrew Brehm
> 
> what makes you think BSD is superior to the linux/windows security risks?
> So BSD is completely immune to hacks? No one can ever take over the machine?
> 

Yes, every improvement means perfection. Obviously, when I think that 
BSD is more secure than Linux I must mean that BSD is "completely immune 
to hacks".

Or did you want to say that while VMS is more secure than every 
hypervisor, BSD cannot be more secure than Linux?

-- 
Andrew Brehm