[Info-vax] Comment on the future of OpenVMS

[Arne Vajhøj]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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.
>> 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.

Oracle will not give up the Linux and Windows markets. Too much money.

Arne