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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/14/2022 10:56 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> 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.

Nobody knows what that would reveal.

But it does not change the fact that there is a risk with
systemd.

And the topic was risk not vulnerability counts.

>> 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?

It is a risk greater than zero.

You were the one that claimed a risk greater than zero
was a problem.

It is not likely that GPL would be declared illegal. And
if it did happen then it is not likely that a solution
like a new license would not be found. So it is a very
small risk.

Everybody using Linux lives with that risk. No action
considered necessary.

>> VMS is not under GPL.
> 
> No, it's not.  What licenses _does_ it fall under?

VMS is sold under a commercial license.

>                                                      I keep
> hearing something about Oracle; suppose they try and sue VSI to
> enforce some sort of rights?

AFAIK there is nothing from Oracle in VMS.

>                                  If we're talking nightmare
> license scenarios, that seems more likely than the GPL being
> nullified in US courts.

I have a different opinion.

>> 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.

Since you yesterday was not even aware that there were risks
for Linux, then your opinion on that matter does not
carry much weight.

Arne