Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ? - VMS

This is a discussion on Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ? - VMS ; On Sep 13, 8:02 pm, Neil Rieck wrote: [...snip...] > HP doesn't use distributed remote access for the OpenVMS source pool; > it's all home-grown access with VDE. VDE is a very old user interface > and very old design ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ?

  1. Re: Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ?

    On Sep 13, 8:02 pm, Neil Rieck wrote:

    [...snip...]

    > HP doesn't use distributed remote access for the OpenVMS source pool;
    > it's all home-grown access with VDE. VDE is a very old user interface
    > and very old design by current standards. (cvs and svn are also
    > relatively old environments, though far newer than VDE.) This use of
    > VDE assuming there have not been radical changes in the operations of
    > OpenVMS over last year; VDE has been in use in OpenVMS Engineering for
    > a very long time, and is accordingly rather entrenched.
    >
    > http://mvb.saic.com/freeware/freewar...vde_guide.html
    >
    > http://mvb.saic.com/freeware/freewarev70/vde/
    >
    > If you dig around, you should be able to find some ancient
    > presentations I've done on VDE.
    >


    VDE = VMS Development Environment

    Thanks to Mr. Anonymous. I didn't know about this and will definately
    check it out.

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


  2. Re: Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ?

    In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    > On 09/14/07 15:46, Bob Koehler wrote:
    >> In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >>> Unless CMS was originally a 3rd party product, one would hope that
    >>> DEC ate it's own dog food.

    >>
    >> The presentation I was at made it sound like MMS and CMS originated
    >> with the ACS required by the original ACS spec, but then worked on

    >
    > ACS?
    >


    Oops, I meant ACS required by the original Ada spec. The
    capabilities DEC put into the Ada Compile System were required by the
    Ada spec, but the name ACS was DEC's invention.


  3. Re: ACS (was: Will Linux bloat itself out of existence ?)

    In article , koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >> On 09/14/07 15:46, Bob Koehler wrote:
    >>> In article , Ron Johnson writes:
    >>>> Unless CMS was originally a 3rd party product, one would hope that
    >>>> DEC ate it's own dog food.
    >>>
    >>> The presentation I was at made it sound like MMS and CMS originated
    >>> with the ACS required by the original ACS spec, but then worked on

    >>
    >> ACS?
    >>

    >
    > Oops, I meant ACS required by the original Ada spec. The
    > capabilities DEC put into the Ada Compile System were required by the
    > Ada spec, but the name ACS was DEC's invention.


    I see no external similarity between ACS and MMS/CMS. They may be
    intended to fill the same gap in the software development process,
    but the way they do this is entirely different.

  4. Re: ACS (was: Will Linux bloat itself out of existence ?)

    In article , Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
    >
    > I see no external similarity between ACS and MMS/CMS. They may be
    > intended to fill the same gap in the software development process,
    > but the way they do this is entirely different.


    Externally they are very different. Internally I think they may
    be using the same or similar engines.


  5. Re: ACS (was: Will Linux bloat itself out of existence ?)

    In article <6GJ+O6PWQIUC@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
    > In article , Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
    >>
    >> I see no external similarity between ACS and MMS/CMS. They may be
    >> intended to fill the same gap in the software development process,
    >> but the way they do this is entirely different.

    >
    > Externally they are very different. Internally I think they may
    > be using the same or similar engines.


    CMS stores the entire history of a source module, ACS stores only the
    latest "good" source. MMS accepts user-specified rules on compilation
    order; ACS figures it out from language source, storing it in arcane
    data files. The newer MMS feature just creates the control files in
    the same language a user would use to specify rules.

    Most of all, ACS offers "smart recompilation", requiring a level
    of detail not addressed by MMS/CMS.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2