[Info-vax] %SYSTEM-F-ACCVIO again

[Robert A. Brooks]

On 4/8/2024 8:34 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
  
> If there's something VMS needs or a configuration it doesn't support,
> then that should be probed at boot time and VMS should refuse to continue
> booting with the reason why been made clear. The bug in this case is that
> this check is missing from VMS.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way is that we have been quite clear what the requirements are to run VMS.

Any variation from that is unsupported.  We recognize that there are likely configurations
that are technically unsupported, but will still likely work.  Preventing those
configurations from working is someething we could do, but chose not to.

> The other possibility is that VMS is _supposed_ to work OK in this
> configuration, but this specific VM setup has been untested by VSI until
> now. That means there is a bug in the VMS code itself which needs fixing.

We are not claiming support for Proxmox, although that testing has begun.
Given that it is a KVM-based hypervisor, getting it fully supported should not
be difficult, but we're not there yet.

It is for these reasons that we've been quite conservative about what is supported.

We are interested in any feedback we get, but that doesn't mean we're going to respond to every
problem immediately when it's an unsupported configuration.
  
-- 
	-- Rob