[Info-vax] Comment on the future of OpenVMS

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <3200fbed-ffec-45e0-8af4-bcc19291797d at h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
	Neil Rieck <n.rieck at sympatico.ca> writes:
> On Oct 25, 10:03=A0pm, Arne Vajh=F8j <a... at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> Neil Rieck wrote:
>> > This week I e-attended the 2-day Oracle-RDB in Nashua, NH. I just
>> > wanted to pass on a few quotes from the presentation which can also be
>> > found in the presentation material.
>>
>> >http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/rdb/tech_forums/index.html
>>
>> > 1) Oracle on OpenVMS continues because Oracle Database & Oracle Rdb
>> > business is healthy & valuable
>>
>> Oracle is good at making money.
>>
>> > 2) Cooperation between Oracle & HP development teams means better
>> > performance and manageability for you
>>
>> > 3) 150,000+ combined customers=85
>> > =96 41% of Oracle customers run HP servers
>> > =96 70% mid-range HP-UX servers & 90% of Superdomes run Oracle
>> > =96 90+% HP OpenVMS database servers use Oracle (either DB or RDB)
>>
>> There are not many alternatives!
>>
>>
>>
>> > The following two points were presented verbally (so are not in the
>> > presentation material)
>>
>> > 4) Itanium blades (running OpenVMS) are making new inroads into
>> > semiconductor manufacturing.
>>
>> > 5) Itanium blades will soon appear with 32 and 64 cores
>>
>> > Here are two comments of my own:
>>
>> > 1) In the porting presentation we were all told how Oracle-DB (not
>> > RBD) was ported from VMS to Solaris and then developed from there. As
>> > time passed it became more difficult to port back to VMS. VMS changes
>> > when morphing into OpenVMS, as well as ODS-5, made back-porting for
>> > them somewhat easier. Back-porting got even easier with the "UNIX
>> > portability initiative" which they contributed to.
>>
>> > 2) In all this I sensed some enthusiasm from all participants (both
>> > Oracle and HP) which I haven't sensed from HP-only gatherings for 3 or
>> > 4 years. I kept on thinking that if HP really did something really
>> > stupid to OpenVMS, that Oracle would be there (with deep pockets) to
>> > pick up the pieces. After all, 150,000 combined customers is nothing
>> > to ignore.
>>
>> I don't think it will happen.
>>
>> But Oracle is fundamentally a software company and most of their
>> business is in reliable systems, so VMS would probably fit better
>> than with a company which makes most of its money from
>> printers and PC's.
>>
>> Arne
> 
> You may be correct. I have been accused of viewing the world through
> the prism of optimism. That said, Oracle's track record as a company
> is better than most. If I could travel 10-years back in time to tell
> myself that "Oracle bought Sun" I would have been skeptical. While it
> is unlikely that Oracle could ever buy HP, I think Oracle would buy
> the OpenVMS division of HP "if HP lost interest in OpenVMS". But this
> is all conjecture.

Interesting scenario.  Here's mine (or at least what I would be doing
if I were at Oracle.

I just bought Sun.  I now own Solaris.  Oracle already runs on Solaris.
I would be developing Solaris to be the platform on which Oracle runs.
I would remove anything that Solaris now has as a general purpose OS
and concentrate on the things Solaris needs to run Oracle.  And then 
I would offer it as my primary platform for Oracle at no additional cost
to Oracle customers.  Advantages: Single platform to maintain, security,
reduced cost to my customers.

But we shall see.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>