[Info-vax] The real problem that needs solving to grow VMS

[Dan Cross]

In article <tnduv4$68n$1 at gioia.aioe.org>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 12/14/2022 8:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <tnds9h$1dug$1 at gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Given that there must be lots of risks that
>>> apply to VMS but not to Linux and lots of risks
>>> that apply to Linux but not to VMS, then the fact that
>>> this risk apply to VMS but not to Linux does
>>> not make Linux more attractive.
>> 
>> This is the thing: what risks apply to Linux that do not apply
>> to VMS?  Seriously.  Give me an example.
>
>Vulnerabilities in systemd.

First of all, it is not necessary to run systemd, and there are
Linux distros that don't ship it.

But if we're going to go there, now count vulnerabilities in
VMS...but apply the same microscope of research to VMS that we
do to Linux, to make it a fair comparison.

>GPL being declared illegal by the supreme court.

The GPL has been tested in court multiple times, and this has
never even been close to an outcome.  Moreover, how many
large organizations have bet their collective farms on it?
If Google, Amazon, Meta, any number of government labs,
not to mention Fortune 500 companies are running Linux in
mission-critical roles, do you really think that is likely to
happen?  Didn't their lawyers scrutinize it with respect to
existing caselaw?

>VMS does not have systemd.

Not every Linux distribution has systemd, either.

But VMS does have a bunch of services that have received no
significant security attention over the last 30 years.

Moreover Linux is the most popular operating system in the
world, and runs on everything from cell phones to every top-500
supercomputer in the world; I'd estimate that it has more cycles
run through it in a minute than VMS ever did in its entire
existence.  That's a lot of security scrutinization.

>VMS is not under GPL.

No, it's not.  What licenses _does_ it fall under?  I keep
hearing something about Oracle; suppose they try and sue VSI to
enforce some sort of rights?  If we're talking nightmare
license scenarios, that seems more likely than the GPL being
nullified in US courts.

>VMS and Linux are different. There must be thousands/millions of
>things that could go wrong for VMS without impacting Linux
>and thousands/millions of things that could go wrong for Linux
>without impacting VMS.

Yes, they are different.  But if "systemd and the GPL" are the
best examples of risks people can come up with for Linux, it's
reinforcing my thesis that choosing Linux is a lot less risky
than choosing VMS.

I contend that the number of risks for VMS is much greater than
the number for Linux; they're not even within the same order of
magnitude.  And I _like_ VMS and want to see it be successful;
those with purchasing power could probably care less and see
only the drawbacks.

Sorry, but I'd wager a year's salary that this is how most
purchasing agents would see the matter.  It is NOT making the
case for VMS.  Folks who want to see VMS succeed need to do
better to make the case for it.

	- Dan C.