[Info-vax] VSI strategy for OpenVMS

[chris]

On 09/14/21 21:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> chris<chris-nospam at tridac.net>  wrote:
>> A lot of system management is done via browsers, for years now. Also,
>> for software dev, nothing beats a windowing system with multiple
>> terminal windows and tabbed full screen editors. I used to be pretty
>> deft with edt on a vt terminal but those days are gone forever. All the
>> ilom i've worked with works far better using a browser for access. A
>> sort of universal access method for systems. So yes, lack of a browser
>> might be seen as a serious disadvantage.
>
> Right, but who sits in front of a server these days anyway?  You sit in
> front of a workstation, maybe one halfway across the country from the
> server, and that workstation is running a browser.  What you need on the
> server isn't a browser, but a webserver, and tools to allow remote
> administration via web.

Absolutely, but that's only one scenario and many people do development
on server hardware for all kinds of reasons. VMS needs to support
local development, with the tools ready and available to support that.
That includes the use of a browser to lookup some technical point
or another. Do that all the time here and don't want to keep switching
machines to do it.

>
>> As for built in frame buffer support, they are often very low end
>> hardware devices and none i've seen have been good or fast enough
>> for X windows use. Important to know what's being promised in that
>> respect...
>
> These days, most cheap video cards in VGA mode are enough for basic
> X11 use.  It would not be difficult to get a basic DECWindows server
> working under x86 VMS.  What would be difficult is getting all the other
> millions of applications that people want.  Even so, it's probably not
> worth the effort for something that so few people will ever want to use.
> --scott

I don't differentiate between desktop and server class machines,
hardware is the same under the skin. I tend to use server class
machines here for desktop use, as they are more likely to include
multiple network interfaces, ecc memory, better system management
capability and built in raid  controllers. Also, they have common
physical outline designed to fit in a rack, which saves space.
Again, same hardware under skin though and a far cry from the days
of 8600 and ilk vax machines of old compared to desktop
workstations of the time, where the server / desktop naming really
meant something. I would not try to use the average desktop machine
for server duty, as they lack most of the capability of server class
hardware, The difference isn't so much hardware quality, but what's
added to make it really useful for the task.

As for the video cards on some modern servers, what I find is that they
have limited performance and there are no drivers available to run X
anyway. Strictly vga console duty use only. Forget running X on them,
without writing appropriate drivers. Hence  suggestion of using vnc
for remote access, or perhaps even a built in web server. As I said,
understand what you are being promised and the limitations of hardware.

Chris