[Info-vax] Don't want that? Well, don't use that. You've got options. (Was: Re: WHY IS VSI REQUIRING A HYPERVISOR FOR X86 OPENVMS?)

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2021-01-11 12:22:16 +0000, D W said:

> 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?

You have the answer and the configuration you wanted with the planned 
native boot support for the production releases, and you don't have to 
run BSD or Linux or another a hypervisor if you don't want to.

For security, OpenVMS has had malware—including the classic viruses and 
worms—over the years. OpenVMS servers have had breaches.

With 1239 OpenVMS servers visible on the Internet—various of which are 
running ancient versions—there's not a big market for botnets nor for 
wider disclosures of flaws, which changes how flaws are managed.

On the subject of current usage and old OpenVMS releases, there's an 
odd server running today: an OpenVMS V8.3-1H1 box is running on AWS. 
(That'd mean Itanium emulation, or AWS Itanium hardware.) Or they're 
spoofing OpenVMS.

But back to your utterly adorable trolling efforts: if you don't want a 
hypervisor, don't run a hypervisor. Don't want BSD or Linux, don't run 
it. Got favorite x86-64 hardware, let VSI know about that.

For BSD, there's the full-disclosure policy, and here are some of the 
changes that the OpenBSD team have implemented: 
http://www.openbsd.org/security.html  OpenVMS is lacking in many of 
these areas.

And call back in a year or three about your x86-64 native-boot hardware 
requirements, as the OpenVMS production release becomes available, and 
as a whole lot can change with hardware between now and then. We could 
all be clamoring for Arm by then, after all.


-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC