6-core CPU on the horizon - VMS

This is a discussion on 6-core CPU on the horizon - VMS ; On Feb 28, 9:36*am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote: > In article , [...snip...] > Well, RSX-11 and RT-11 are hardly museum bait. *They are still sold and > maintained by Mentec and I know of a number of commercial operations ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: 6-core CPU on the horizon

  1. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    On Feb 28, 9:36*am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <0f290c00-b750-40c8-a706-127667c4c...@o77g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,


    [...snip...]

    > Well, RSX-11 and RT-11 are hardly museum bait. *They are still sold and
    > maintained by Mentec and I know of a number of commercial operations
    > using them. *Oh yeah, and RSTS as well.
    >


    My point exactly. When OpenVMS stops laying (large enough) golden eggs
    for HP, they will sell it off to a smaller company rather than put the
    source code into the public domain which would allow an Open Source
    community to keep it alive and current.

    On the flip side, maybe JF's comment should be explored further: HP
    should do a deal with Intel to help pay for porting OpenVMS to x86-64.
    This way, Intel will have covered all their bases. The user community
    could then develop user apps on smaller OpenVMS platforms which could
    then be implemented are large corporate systems once sold.

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

  2. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Neil Rieck wrote:

    > My point exactly. When OpenVMS stops laying (large enough) golden eggs
    > for HP, they will sell it off to a smaller company rather than put the
    > source code into the public domain which would allow an Open Source
    > community to keep it alive and current.



    Here is how I see it happening:

    HP progressively reduces development of VMS with more and more emphasis
    put on supporting new IA64 hardware.

    Eventually HP announces end of development for VMS, like it did for MPE.

    Patches would be issued if new IA64 is still produced from that point
    onwards.

    HP will continue to sell support for VAX VMS, Alpha VMS and those few
    IA64 VMS sites. This is raw profit for them. Remember that there is a
    credible commitment to continue to rpovide support for 5 years after the
    announcement of end of development of VMS. HP isn't about to let
    someone else have those raw profits of support contracts.

    Only after that period, if the support contracts are not worth
    continuing, would HP consider telling its remaining customers to seek
    some alternate support provider (Such as Bruden). And it is not clear
    that Bruden would be given sources to VMS.

    Remember that at the time HP will push its remaining customers over to
    Bruden or some other place like Mentec, HP will have made damned sure
    that VMS is not ressucitable (can't be brought back to life) and that it
    will never come back to compete against HP. At that point, no outfit
    would be willing to undertake to restart development on VMS.

  3. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    Cydrome Leader wrote:
    > Neil Rieck wrote:
    >> On Feb 27, 6:31 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>> JF Mezei wrote:
    >>>> Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then
    >>>>> deprecate VMS.
    >>>
    >>>> No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a
    >>>> VMS customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.
    >>>
    >>> how many tens of dollars is the VMS market worth these days?

    >>
    >> I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but there are only two ways to
    >> get OpenVMS ported to other platforms like x86-64.
    >>
    >> 1) HP will need to pay professional programmers to do it. Since this
    >> will be expensive, it will also require a business plan with an ROI
    >> of 3-4 years.

    >
    > I'm sure HP could pull this off if they wanted to. Even unisys (no
    > joke, they're still in business) was able to port their burroughs
    > mainframe OS to x86 processors. Lookup OS 2200 or whatever it's
    > called.
    >
    > I did more digging, and it was some sort of virtualization type port,
    > but they maintained compatibility with the old systems, and it works.
    >
    > That's how Wang users continue to run these days- on some sort of
    > emulation wedge on intel processors.
    >
    > If that's what it takes, they should go for it.
    >
    >
    >> 2) HP would need to release the source code to the public domain then
    >> HOPE that "the world army of university students" and "open-source
    >> contributors" pick up the ball and run with it (this is one reason
    >> why UNIX + Linux seem to be everywhere and on everything). Since
    >> releasing OpenVMS code into the public domain would most likely hurt
    >> their current licensing revenue, and there is no real ROI to this
    >> action, this will never happen.

    >
    > They should skip this part. I have no interest in running code messed
    > with
    > by complete idiots. Just look at the linux word. People keep breaking
    > code that worked just fine and didn't need to be messed with.
    >
    > I'm not interested in 200 concurrent projects and branches. Just give
    > me
    > one or two versions supported by one vendor that actually works.
    >
    >> So the only hope for OpenVMS is to convince HP to proceed with plan
    >> #1. To start this, we all need to be less dogmatic about non-Alpha
    >> hardware. Continually bashing Intel technology (32, 64, or 128 bit
    >> processors) sends strong messages to HP that we would never support
    >> OpenVMS on x86-64.

    >
    > Or switch to other going nowhere platforms that do run on intel stuff,
    > like some unisys mainframe or Wang VS system running on a dell so some
    > clown can write a white paper on ROI and TCO. HP might notice that.
    >
    > Sun had made this jump to x86 processors already. IBM is still
    > holding out with AIX, but their Power series processors are actually
    > 1) fast and 2) modern and 3) still being updated. Sun sort of dropped
    > the sparc, and HP doesn't make processors anymore. They're going to
    > have to kill their
    > legacy stuff off or adapt to a modern platform.


    That probably should have read "popular platform"

    Dweeb



  4. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    On Mar 1, 7:48 am, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Feb 29, 1:33 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    >

    [...snip...]

    I forgot to add one interesting observation: IBM Canada offers OpenVMS
    system support (hardware as well as OS) in Canada which means that IBM
    probably offers this service world wide. (I know several of the IBM
    "VMS specialists" and know that they sometimes lurk here but never
    post)

    Now I don't think IBM would get involved with buying, and then
    developing, OpenVMS. However, IBM is one of the biggest single
    contributors to Linux so they must see some value in this kind of
    thinking. Just food for thought.

    Neil Rieck
    Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
    Ontario, Canada.
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

  5. Re: 6-core CPU on the horizon

    CyberCityNews wrote:
    > Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >> Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>> On Feb 27, 6:31 pm, Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>>> JF Mezei wrote:
    >>>>> Cydrome Leader wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> so in this case the point is to get people off VMS and then
    >>>>>> deprecate VMS.
    >>>>
    >>>>> No. The point is to send the message to HP that when they allow a
    >>>>> VMS customer to drop VMS, that customer also drops HP alltogether.
    >>>>
    >>>> how many tens of dollars is the VMS market worth these days?
    >>>
    >>> I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but there are only two ways to
    >>> get OpenVMS ported to other platforms like x86-64.
    >>>
    >>> 1) HP will need to pay professional programmers to do it. Since this
    >>> will be expensive, it will also require a business plan with an ROI
    >>> of 3-4 years.

    >>
    >> I'm sure HP could pull this off if they wanted to. Even unisys (no
    >> joke, they're still in business) was able to port their burroughs
    >> mainframe OS to x86 processors. Lookup OS 2200 or whatever it's
    >> called.
    >>
    >> I did more digging, and it was some sort of virtualization type port,
    >> but they maintained compatibility with the old systems, and it works.
    >>
    >> That's how Wang users continue to run these days- on some sort of
    >> emulation wedge on intel processors.
    >>
    >> If that's what it takes, they should go for it.
    >>
    >>
    >>> 2) HP would need to release the source code to the public domain then
    >>> HOPE that "the world army of university students" and "open-source
    >>> contributors" pick up the ball and run with it (this is one reason
    >>> why UNIX + Linux seem to be everywhere and on everything). Since
    >>> releasing OpenVMS code into the public domain would most likely hurt
    >>> their current licensing revenue, and there is no real ROI to this
    >>> action, this will never happen.

    >>
    >> They should skip this part. I have no interest in running code messed
    >> with
    >> by complete idiots. Just look at the linux word. People keep breaking
    >> code that worked just fine and didn't need to be messed with.
    >>
    >> I'm not interested in 200 concurrent projects and branches. Just give
    >> me
    >> one or two versions supported by one vendor that actually works.
    >>
    >>> So the only hope for OpenVMS is to convince HP to proceed with plan
    >>> #1. To start this, we all need to be less dogmatic about non-Alpha
    >>> hardware. Continually bashing Intel technology (32, 64, or 128 bit
    >>> processors) sends strong messages to HP that we would never support
    >>> OpenVMS on x86-64.

    >>
    >> Or switch to other going nowhere platforms that do run on intel stuff,
    >> like some unisys mainframe or Wang VS system running on a dell so some
    >> clown can write a white paper on ROI and TCO. HP might notice that.
    >>
    >> Sun had made this jump to x86 processors already. IBM is still
    >> holding out with AIX, but their Power series processors are actually
    >> 1) fast and 2) modern and 3) still being updated. Sun sort of dropped
    >> the sparc, and HP doesn't make processors anymore. They're going to
    >> have to kill their
    >> legacy stuff off or adapt to a modern platform.

    >
    > That probably should have read "popular platform"


    It's popular because it's cost effective and you get far more performance
    per dollar, as well as it's easy to repurpose a machine.

    Why the hell would anybody want an itanium, PA-RISC or Alpha CPU these
    days, aside for maybe tossing into a history of processors collection?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3