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

[Tad Winters]

On 5/5/2021 4:27 AM, Bill Gunshannon via Info-vax wrote:
> On 5/5/21 12:06 AM, Tad Winters wrote:
>> On 5/4/2021 9:53 AM, Bill Gunshannon via Info-vax wrote:
>>> On 5/4/21 9:25 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> In article <ifcu1jFphjgU1 at mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
>>>> <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/4/21 8:11 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 in Unix except file versions and I have
>>> never known anyone other than VMS users who saw value in them. Sorry.
>>
>> Where I work, and they don't have VMS, someone says we're going to
>> perform a DR test by "virtually" pulling the power on one site.  The
>> response is, "Wait, the active nodes of the cluster are at that site.  I
>> need to fail them over to the other side before you pull the power."
>>
>> "Active?"  The "other side?"  How is that a cluster?  Where's the DR in
>> that?
>>
>
> Stop blaming OSes for the incompetence of the administrators.  Oh wait,
> we like to blame computer languages for the incompetence of programmers
> so I guess it's OK after all.

Deflection.