[Info-vax] Ghostscript and HTML Browser on X86

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/14/22 19:12, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/14/2022 2:59 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/14/22 14:00, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2022-12-14, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When you're trying to sell the C?? levels on the idea of keeping
>>>> VMS around, it does not go well telling them that in order to use
>>>> it effectively you will also need to have Linux or Windows around.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't make much sense. z/OS has PC-based development tools,
>>
>> VMS isn't zOS.  Most CEOs and CIOs have heard of zOS and IBM can the
>> same be said for VMS and VSI?
>>
>>> and many network or embedded devices require a web browser running
>>> elsewhere for management interface purposes.
>>>
>>> VMS should be regarded much more like an embedded device than it is
>>> at the moment when it comes to managing it, if you want it to survive
>>> in today's world.
>>>
>>> C?? levels don't have a problem with management of devices from a PC.
>>> In fact, it's a well-known and comfortable concept for them.
>>
>> No, but I imagine a lot of them do have a problem with that red-headed
>> step child called VMS and will use any excuse they can find to get rid
>> of it.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Why do you call it names?

Not much on English idiom, are we.

> 
> Why would most people want to get rid of something that is doing it's 
> job, and doing it well?  Do you think they all have a death wish?

One reason would be because they went to a conference, told
their peers what they were running, and got laughed at.  And,
yes, it does happen.

> 
> Most VMs systems that exist today exist because nothing could replace 
> them.  Got to wonder how many other systems can make that claim.

That is just plain ridiculous.  I expect most VMS systems continue to
exist today because of momentum, nothing more.  There is nothing that
is being done on VMS that could not be done on another system.

bill