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

[Dan Cross]

In article <tnggn4$1dgm$1 at gioia.aioe.org>,
Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 12/14/2022 10:56 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> 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.

Exactly. Meanwhile, people analyze Linux all the time.

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

There may be a risk with some random GNU utility, too, which
doesn't affect Alpine Linux at all.

>And the topic was risk not vulnerability counts.

The point is, due to lack of investment and research, the risk
is much greater for VMS than for Linux.

>>> 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.

So is the sun exploding.  So is Linus Torvalds getting hit by
a bus.  So is a nuclear reactor melting down.

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

What I claimed is that it is much riskier to go with VMS than
Linux.  The risks that you point to with Linux are so unlikely
as to be negligible.  On the other hand, the risks with VMS are
very, very real.

>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.

Precisely.

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

Yes.  A very restrictive one.

>>                                                      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.

RDB?

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

You can have any opinion you want, but the fact is, the license
situation with VMS is objectively more precarious than with the
GPL.  C'mon, now, I'm quite sure you know this.

>>> 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.

The most charitable interpretation I can offer here is that you
are being deliberately obtuse to make a rhetorical point that is
not otherwise defendable.

	- Dan C.