[Info-vax] OpenVMS app development, kitting

[Dave Froble]

On 11/24/2021 2:26 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 at 8:19:21 PM UTC+13, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> On 11/22/2021 1:36 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
>> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
>> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
>> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
>> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
>> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
>
> It has been some years since RMS had any real influence. Most open-source
> software is unaffiliated with the Free Software Foundation or the GNU project.
> Quite a lot these days is built by companies like Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and
> Google.
>
>>
>>> BTW: OpenVMS customers REJECTED an offer to open-source OpenVMS. Yes.
>>> Really. Outright rejected that. Put slightly differently, some of the
>>> open-source preferences around here can be... unexpected. Even among
>>> folks that have worked with OpenVMS for decades.
>> No surprise. People who use VMS like VMS. People who use VMS don't
>> like some open-source code, and don't like Richard
>> if-your-code-is-not-open-source-then-that-is-a-crime-against-humanity M.
>> Stallman and his ilk driving the community. (Yes, Stallman---who by all
>> accounts seems to be a rather creepy guy---really said that, insulting
>> millions of victims of real crimes against humanity.)
>>
>> Has VMS been handled badly by its owners, including DEC? Sure. Should
>> the solution be open source? Probably not. The world is not black and
>> white, though it seems that more and more people try to see it that way,
>> e.g. either one supports Trump or one is woke. Whatever happened to
>> old-fashioned common sense?
>
> If it had been open sourced then VAX hobbyists wouldn't be loosing access
> to OpenVMS at the end of this year. Same goes for people with older Alpha
> hardware.
>
> I think the main thing open-sourcing it would have achieved is securing *a*
> future for it. It would have guaranteed access indefinitely to anyone with an
> interest in running it.
>
> Now is there is no guarantee VMS will be available long term - its continued
> availability depends on it being profitable. If VSI is not replacing every customer
> that leaves then eventually everyone who is not the original owner of a permanent
> license will find themselves in the same situation as VAX hobbyists.
>

As usual, not black or white. just shades of grey.

As I read posts here in c.o.v, some of which deplore some of the parts of VMS, 
as in the recent discussion about ASTs and the R0,R1,etc arguments, I have to 
wonder what might happen to an "open" VMS.  Might some of the fanatical 
"do-gooders" start upgrading or replacing some of the things that makes VMS 
upward compatible?  Might some C programmers decide they didn't need Macro-32, 
Basic, Fortran, Cobol, and such?  Might the desire for OO make many existing 
applications no longer usable?  Where might such a thing go?

One consideration, when one is paying a vendor for a product, they have someone 
who must listen to their needs, at least if they want the customer to continue 
to pay them.  One then asks, what leverage does users have over those "core" 
people in that rust thingy?

As I mentioned, grey.  I think there might be some decent arguments to make the 
OS free and open, while maintainers such as VSI makes their money with support 
and such.  There might also be some valid arguments against.

Never forget, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486