[Info-vax] Security, support and VMS, was: Re: A new VMS?

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 5/4/21 1:08 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <ifdch3Fsc01U1 at mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
> <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>>>> VMS is not Unix or Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is good because it has functionality that neither of them have.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was going to let this slide by, but it just stuck in my
>>>> craw.
>>>>
>>>> What "functionality" does VMS have that Unix and Windows don't?
>>>>
>>>> Remember, we are talking "functionality", not just doing something
>>>> in a different manner.
>>>
>>> Trivially, any Turing machine can emulate another, so they all have the
>>> same functionality.  As for usefulness, top of the list for VMS are
>>> logical names, clustering, fine-grained security concept, HBVS, and file
>>> versions.
>>
>> All of them exist in some form
> 
> Yes, "in some form".  But that form is not nearly as useful as the VMS
> functionality.  For example, tell me how to set up a logical-name table
> which belongs to a given user or group but is cluster wide.

Tell me what task you are actually trying to accomplish and I can
probably tell you how to do it in Unix.  But, imitating VMS is neither
doable or desired.

> 
>> except file versions and I have
>> never known anyone other than VMS users who saw value in them. Sorry.
> 
> There are many things which people see no value in because they have
> never experienced them.  Of all the things I listed, this one is
> obviously of tremendous value.
> 

I've experienced them.  Don't miss them at all.  Never really
made any use of them when I had them.  None of my former VMS
users at the University ever lamented t heir disappearance either.
There have always been other ways to accomplish the same job.

bill