[Info-vax] Desirable features for VMS

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 1/25/2024 6:59 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> On 2024-01-25 20:20:09 +0000, Arne Vajhøj said:
>> On 1/25/2024 8:21 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> Mandatory Access Controls (my preference) or jails (Stephen's 
>>> preference).
>>
>> The market want containers.
>>
>> I suspect that means Hoff jails with a marketing label of "container" 
>> instead of "jail".
> 
> Jails / sandboxes can be used as a component of containers, but—as I've 
> commented elsewhere—containers are far too reminiscent of licensing 
> arbitrage. Which can somewhat dampen vendor enthusiasm.

"containers" is what sells.

> Jails / sandboxes can be built upon some of the parts of mandatory 
> access controls, but I ~never want to have to use a system configured 
> for SEVMS-style MAC. Jails, sure. SEVMS-style MAC, not so much.

SEVMS-style MAC was targeting the 1980's requirements.

>>> A shell with decent modern functionality such as:
>>>
>>>     Proper command history retention and merging from multiple sessions
>>>     Easy searching of command history
>>>     Tab completion
>>>     Editing long command lines
>>>     Globbing
>>
>> +better control structures
>> +better data types
>>
>> But I doubt it makes sense business wise.
>>
>> VMS got:
>> * DCL for backwards compatibility
>> * GNV bash for *nix compatibility
>> * Python and Perl for more programmatic scripting
>>
>> Even though DCL2 or XDCL would be nice then I don't think it will 
>> increase VMS sale.
> 
> Likely not perceived as an increase sales. Though as happened with DII 
> COE, sometimes major customers will establish requirements here.
> 
> There are a lot of things in this same general category too, which is 
> the other side of facilitating and encouraging new adoptions.

Very few people work at the command prompt today. I doubt "shell power"
will become a requirement.

>>> ASLR and KASLR support.
>>
>> That would probably come as part of ongoing security enhancements at 
>> some point in time.
> 
> Stack canaries might be easier.

I believe LLVM support it, so ...

>>> Proper timezone management. (Everything is always UTC based, and your 
>>> timezone is merely a local session property with no effect on the 
>>> on-disk timestamps).
>>
>> Nice but tricky to implement without breaking stuff.
> 
> That's been the compatibility hobgoblin ~forever.  The quadword format 
> is embedded all over the place. For some sites, switching to UTC as the 
> base works fine.
> 
> I've run OpenVMS servers set to UTC at various installations, too, ("Oh, 
> that? Yeah. The server is in England." usually suffices.)
> 
> Downside is that saved dates can be off by a day pending a rewrite, 
> which can absolutely be a non-starter for some sites.

For backwards compatibility the old saying applies:

"I'll be damned if I do, I'll be damned if I don't"

Arne