Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ? - VMS

This is a discussion on Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ? - VMS ; http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7 It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions 8.2 million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89 changes to the kernel per hour. Is this really sustainable ? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ?

  1. Will Linux bloat itself out of existance ?

    http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7

    It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions 8.2
    million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89 changes to
    the kernel per hour.

    Is this really sustainable ?

    Perhaps if VMS were allowed to be marketed, they could use arguments
    such as "stable code base" and "discipline in code management" to
    convince CIOs that it is better to go with VMS than going with the new
    kid on the block that is still going through puberty with ackward growth
    spurts.

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

    On 09/11/07 13:41, JF Mezei wrote:
    > http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >
    > It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions 8.2
    > million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89 changes to
    > the kernel per hour.
    >
    > Is this really sustainable ?


    Absolutely. (Well, close enough to absolutely.)

    Most of the changes are new drivers, better drivers, better support
    for niche CPUs, etc.

    The highly modular and "pluginable" architecture (hopefully) makes
    most changes isolated from one another.

    > Perhaps if VMS were allowed to be marketed, they could use arguments
    > such as "stable code base"


    Stable or ossified?

    > and "discipline in code management" to


    Well that's true. Or at least it used to be.

    Starting 18-24 months ago, the kernel was put into a sccs. Now
    "git" lets people check out and merge back sub-trees in a
    distributed manner.

    > convince CIOs that it is better to go with VMS than going with the new
    > kid on the block that is still going through puberty with ackward growth
    > spurts.


    "Awkward growth spurts" or dynamic adjustments to modern hardware?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

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

    On 09/11/07 18:22, Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:41:29 -0700, JF Mezei
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >>
    >> It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions
    >> 8.2 million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89
    >> changes to the kernel per hour.
    >>
    >> Is this really sustainable ?
    >>
    >> Perhaps if VMS were allowed to be marketed, they could use arguments
    >> such as "stable code base" and "discipline in code management" to
    >> convince CIOs that it is better to go with VMS than going with the new
    >> kid on the block that is still going through puberty with ackward
    >> growth spurts.

    >
    >
    > I just calculated at that rate it will be as big as VMS in 14 + years
    > (didn't have a calculator)


    What part of VMS did you look at? The Whole Thing?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

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

    On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:35:15 -0700, Ron Johnson
    wrote:

    > On 09/11/07 18:22, Tom Linden wrote:
    >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:41:29 -0700, JF Mezei
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >>>
    >>> It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions
    >>> 8.2 million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89
    >>> changes to the kernel per hour.
    >>>
    >>> Is this really sustainable ?
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps if VMS were allowed to be marketed, they could use arguments
    >>> such as "stable code base" and "discipline in code management" to
    >>> convince CIOs that it is better to go with VMS than going with the new
    >>> kid on the block that is still going through puberty with ackward
    >>> growth spurts.

    >>
    >>
    >> I just calculated at that rate it will be as big as VMS in 14 + years
    >> (didn't have a calculator)

    >
    > What part of VMS did you look at? The Whole Thing?
    >

    Just remember a quiz by Hoff and it would be about 4 times as large, I
    guess
    that was all of VMS


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

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

    On 09/11/07 19:11, Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:35:15 -0700, Ron Johnson
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 09/11/07 18:22, Tom Linden wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:41:29 -0700, JF Mezei
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >>>>
    >>>> It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions
    >>>> 8.2 million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89
    >>>> changes to the kernel per hour.
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this really sustainable ?
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps if VMS were allowed to be marketed, they could use arguments
    >>>> such as "stable code base" and "discipline in code management" to
    >>>> convince CIOs that it is better to go with VMS than going with the new
    >>>> kid on the block that is still going through puberty with ackward
    >>>> growth spurts.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I just calculated at that rate it will be as big as VMS in 14 + years
    >>> (didn't have a calculator)

    >>
    >> What part of VMS did you look at? The Whole Thing?
    >>

    > Just remember a quiz by Hoff


    ????

    > and it would be about 4 times as large, I
    > guess that was all of VMS


    Including DCL and all the utilities?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

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

    On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:02:12 -0700, Ron Johnson
    wrote:

    > On 09/11/07 19:11, Tom Linden wrote:
    >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:35:15 -0700, Ron Johnson
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 09/11/07 18:22, Tom Linden wrote:
    >>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:41:29 -0700, JF Mezei
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions
    >>>>> 8.2 million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89
    >>>>> changes to the kernel per hour.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Is this really sustainable ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Perhaps if VMS were allowed to be marketed, they could use arguments
    >>>>> such as "stable code base" and "discipline in code management" to
    >>>>> convince CIOs that it is better to go with VMS than going with the
    >>>>> new
    >>>>> kid on the block that is still going through puberty with ackward
    >>>>> growth spurts.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I just calculated at that rate it will be as big as VMS in 14 + years
    >>>> (didn't have a calculator)
    >>>
    >>> What part of VMS did you look at? The Whole Thing?
    >>>

    >> Just remember a quiz by Hoff

    >
    > ????
    >
    >> and it would be about 4 times as large, I
    >> guess that was all of VMS

    >
    > Including DCL and all the utilities?
    >

    I don't know.


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

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

    On 09/12/07 08:15, Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:02:12 -0700, Ron Johnson
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 09/11/07 19:11, Tom Linden wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:35:15 -0700, Ron Johnson
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 09/11/07 18:22, Tom Linden wrote:
    >>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:41:29 -0700, JF Mezei
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions
    >>>>>> 8.2 million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89
    >>>>>> changes to the kernel per hour.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is this really sustainable ?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Perhaps if VMS were allowed to be marketed, they could use arguments
    >>>>>> such as "stable code base" and "discipline in code management" to
    >>>>>> convince CIOs that it is better to go with VMS than going with the
    >>>>>> new
    >>>>>> kid on the block that is still going through puberty with ackward
    >>>>>> growth spurts.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I just calculated at that rate it will be as big as VMS in 14 + years
    >>>>> (didn't have a calculator)
    >>>>
    >>>> What part of VMS did you look at? The Whole Thing?
    >>>>
    >>> Just remember a quiz by Hoff

    >>
    >> ????
    >>
    >>> and it would be about 4 times as large, I
    >>> guess that was all of VMS

    >>
    >> Including DCL and all the utilities?
    >>

    > I don't know.


    Hmmm.

    The analogous Linux comparison would be:
    kernel + bash + core utilities + "systartup_vms"

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

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

    On Sep 11, 2:41 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >
    > It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions 8.2
    > million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89 changes to
    > the kernel per hour.
    >
    > Is this really sustainable ?
    >


    3,200 developers for the kernel 2.6.22 !

    This seems more like evolution through natural selection :-)

    You've got to hand it to them though because 3200 pairs of eyes are
    much better than the smaller numbers found at most software houses. I
    had been doing trial installs of Linux and Solaris (along with
    development tools) every year since around 2002 and have seen real
    improvements over the years. So has Gates because he borrowed lots of
    stuff from the OpenSource community like the software firewall stuffed
    into Windows-XP-SP2 and that tabbed browser thing from Mozilla which
    was stuffed into IE7.

    I still prefer OpenVMS but only a fool would ignore the advances made
    by the UNIX/Linux/OpenSource community.

    p.s. on the flip side, anyone who has tried to make sense of either
    CVS or SVN knows that drug abuse is still rampant over there

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


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

    On 09/12/07 22:10, Neil Rieck wrote:
    > On Sep 11, 2:41 pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    >> http://www.cio.com/article/135700/Se...the_IT_World/7
    >>
    >> It lists Linux as one of the 7 wonders of the IT world. It mentions 8.2
    >> million lines of code and growing at 10% per year, and 2.89 changes to
    >> the kernel per hour.
    >>
    >> Is this really sustainable ?
    >>

    >
    > 3,200 developers for the kernel 2.6.22 !
    >
    > This seems more like evolution through natural selection :-)
    >
    > You've got to hand it to them though because 3200 pairs of eyes are
    > much better than the smaller numbers found at most software houses. I


    Most of them work on radically different subsystems. And most of
    those 3200 just submit small patches.

    > had been doing trial installs of Linux and Solaris (along with
    > development tools) every year since around 2002 and have seen real
    > improvements over the years. So has Gates because he borrowed lots of
    > stuff from the OpenSource community like the software firewall stuffed
    > into Windows-XP-SP2 and that tabbed browser thing from Mozilla which
    > was stuffed into IE7.
    >
    > I still prefer OpenVMS but only a fool would ignore the advances made
    > by the UNIX/Linux/OpenSource community.
    >
    > p.s. on the flip side, anyone who has tried to make sense of either
    > CVS or SVN knows that drug abuse is still rampant over there


    Which is why Linus never used cvs for the kernel.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

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

    On Sep 13, 5:59 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    > On 09/12/07 22:10, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >

    [...snip...]
    >
    > > p.s. on the flip side, anyone who has tried to make sense of either
    > > CVS or SVN knows that drug abuse is still rampant over there

    >
    > Which is why Linus never used cvs for the kernel.
    >


    I just received this note from someone who might wish to remain
    anonymous...

    #####

    The kernel uses git, and Linus has been quite clear on his distaste
    for various of the mainstream source management tools including cvs
    and svn.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 (70 min video of Linus @
    Google)

    Yes, cvs and svn are exceedingly weird and often unwieldy (svn is
    somewhat better than cvs), but effective source control is a
    prerequisite for large-scale distributed development. And all
    discussions of pharmaceutical abuse aside, a distributed tool is a
    prerequisite and cvs and svn do work.

    There are a number of cases where cvs or svn or otherwise are
    integrated into the source development environments; into the IDEs.
    This greatly eases the difficulties for developers new to the
    particular tools.

    This area is also an installed-base issue. Once you commit to using a
    particular source control tool (pun intended), you're going to have
    some effort to migrate out and into another. The same difficulty
    holds for committing to an operating system, to a large-scale
    application environment such as source control, or otherwise.

    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.

    But if you're running a distributed environment, svn, cvs or git can
    and do work. There are ports of at least svn and cvs clients
    available for OpenVMS, though I don't know if there's a git port
    around.

    #####

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


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

    In article <1189728159.357597.315220@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>, Neil Rieck writes:
    >
    >
    >On Sep 13, 5:59 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 09/12/07 22:10, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>

    >[...snip...]
    >>
    >> > p.s. on the flip side, anyone who has tried to make sense of either
    >> > CVS or SVN knows that drug abuse is still rampant over there

    >>
    >> Which is why Linus never used cvs for the kernel.
    >>

    >
    >I just received this note from someone who might wish to remain
    >anonymous...
    >
    > #####
    >
    >The kernel uses git, and Linus has been quite clear on his distaste
    >for various of the mainstream source management tools including cvs
    >and svn.
    >
    >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 (70 min video of Linus @
    >Google)
    >
    >Yes, cvs and svn are exceedingly weird and often unwieldy (svn is
    >somewhat better than cvs), but effective source control is a
    >prerequisite for large-scale distributed development. And all
    >discussions of pharmaceutical abuse aside, a distributed tool is a
    >prerequisite and cvs and svn do work.


    I had to use cvs when I was maintaining the OpenVMS component of a multi-
    platform product. Yuck!! Problems it caused/introduced could have been
    better avoided without using cvs at all. Good riddens that project!

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

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

    [snip]
    >
    > But if you're running a distributed environment, svn, cvs or git can
    > and do work. There are ports of at least svn and cvs clients
    > available for OpenVMS, though I don't know if there's a git port
    > around.
    >


    There is a port of mercurial (http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/)
    on OpenVMS.
    From the home page:
    ""
    Mercurial: a fast, lightweight Source Control Management system designed
    for efficient handling of very large distributed projects.
    """
    A example of a mercurial repository running on OpenVMS:
    http://hg.vmspython.dyndns.org/

    JFP

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


    "Neil Rieck" wrote in message
    news:1189728159.357597.315220@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    > On Sep 13, 5:59 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >> On 09/12/07 22:10, Neil Rieck wrote:


    >
    > 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.
    >


    Yes, we use VDE - which in turn is IIRC effectively a layer on top of CMS &
    RDB. I would term it less of a result of "entrenchment" as opposed to there
    having not been a real reason to need a different tool. It is taylored to
    what we do.

    If we were starting out from scratch, I'm sure there would be a lot of
    different choices we would make with many tools and build environment
    methods rather than rolling our own. The available tools today provide a
    much wider palette than it was when we developed what we use today.





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

    FredK wrote:
    > "Neil Rieck" wrote in message
    > news:1189728159.357597.315220@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    >> On Sep 13, 5:59 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>> On 09/12/07 22:10, Neil Rieck wrote:

    >
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > Yes, we use VDE - which in turn is IIRC effectively a layer on top of
    > CMS & RDB. I would term it less of a result of "entrenchment" as
    > opposed to there having not been a real reason to need a different
    > tool. It is taylored to what we do.
    >
    > If we were starting out from scratch, I'm sure there would be a lot of
    > different choices we would make with many tools and build environment
    > methods rather than rolling our own. The available tools today
    > provide a much wider palette than it was when we developed what we
    > use today.


    IIRC I saw a presentation at DECUS decades ago from someone from VMS
    engineering which detailed the selection process which resulted in the
    choice of CMS. I guess VDE came after that.

    Dweeb



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

    In article <46ea957d$0$21933$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. Dweeb" writes:
    >
    >
    >FredK wrote:
    >> "Neil Rieck" wrote in message
    >> news:1189728159.357597.315220@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    >>> On Sep 13, 5:59 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>> On 09/12/07 22:10, Neil Rieck wrote:

    >>
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Yes, we use VDE - which in turn is IIRC effectively a layer on top of
    >> CMS & RDB. I would term it less of a result of "entrenchment" as
    >> opposed to there having not been a real reason to need a different
    >> tool. It is taylored to what we do.
    >>
    >> If we were starting out from scratch, I'm sure there would be a lot of
    >> different choices we would make with many tools and build environment
    >> methods rather than rolling our own. The available tools today
    >> provide a much wider palette than it was when we developed what we
    >> use today.

    >
    >IIRC I saw a presentation at DECUS decades ago from someone from VMS
    >engineering which detailed the selection process which resulted in the
    >choice of CMS. I guess VDE came after that.


    VDE is, for lack of a better term, a layer atop CMS and RDB.

    IIRC, it appeared on one of the Freeware CDs but requires RDB to use.

    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

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

    On 09/14/07 09:08, Dr. Dweeb wrote:
    > FredK wrote:
    >> "Neil Rieck" wrote in message
    >> news:1189728159.357597.315220@57g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
    >>> On Sep 13, 5:59 am, Ron Johnson wrote:
    >>>> On 09/12/07 22:10, Neil Rieck wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >> Yes, we use VDE - which in turn is IIRC effectively a layer on top of
    >> CMS & RDB. I would term it less of a result of "entrenchment" as
    >> opposed to there having not been a real reason to need a different
    >> tool. It is taylored to what we do.
    >>
    >> If we were starting out from scratch, I'm sure there would be a lot of
    >> different choices we would make with many tools and build environment
    >> methods rather than rolling our own. The available tools today
    >> provide a much wider palette than it was when we developed what we
    >> use today.

    >
    > IIRC I saw a presentation at DECUS decades ago from someone from VMS
    > engineering which detailed the selection process which resulted in the
    > choice of CMS. I guess VDE came after that.


    Unless CMS was originally a 3rd party product, one would hope that
    DEC ate it's own dog food.

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

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

    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
    to be language neutral.

    VSE was often presented as a "homegrown" tool made by VMS Engineering
    to meet the needs of building VMS, available to anyone since it's
    on the Freeware CD.

    Needing RDB was, at the time, not a problem in the eyes of DEC
    employees. But the API to CMS has long been published and anyone can
    roll something on top of it to meet their needs.


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

    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?

    > to be language neutral.
    >
    > VSE was often presented as a "homegrown" tool made by VMS Engineering
    > to meet the needs of building VMS, available to anyone since it's
    > on the Freeware CD.
    >
    > Needing RDB was, at the time, not a problem in the eyes of DEC
    > employees. But the API to CMS has long been published and anyone can
    > roll something on top of it to meet their needs.
    >



    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

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


    VDE allows multiple CMS libraries to be operated as a unit, and allows
    for various implementation and administrative (review, notification,
    etc) functions that later became available within CMS itself, as well as
    various functions specific to the particular environment VDE was
    intended for. DEC Notes, for instance, can used as a way to post and to
    track information related to changes.

    VDE was built on callable CMS, on callable DEC Notes, on NMAIL, on Rdb,
    and on a half-dozen or so other pieces of classic DIGITAL software.
    The list of prerequisite software pieces is listed in the install guide
    for VDE.

    One wag once commented VDE was probably one of the most expensive pieces
    of Freeware known, given on its product dependencies.

    The full VDE documentation is moderately huge, with the reference manual
    and the user's guide being the two biggest pieces. Probably three or
    four inches of paper, when printed out. I had my copy in two binders
    left from an old manual set.

    The VDE use of the CMS API is as source code database, and with a few
    related tasks. VDE streams line up with CMS classes, for instance. The
    primary use of CMS is as a difference engine, as well as for
    compatibility elsewhere.

    VDE has appeared on the Freeware twice, most recently with Freeware
    V7.0. The documentation is available on both, though it's easier to get
    at the documentation on Freeware V4. (In Freeware V7, the then-current
    VDE doc is embedded within and is installed by the PCSI kit; you can
    extract it from the kit.)

    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 at least a few of the old
    presentations I created for various symposia. I submitted a source code
    control session every couple of symposia. In particular, there was an
    evaluation of various products that was discussed at a DECUS eons ago,
    as a result of looking at various then-available products. That was so
    long ago that mentioning the other products isn't really relevant now.
    That CMS was in use goes back rather further than that.

    The VDE command interface was a classic DIGITAL CLI-style utility. If
    you've seen how a product such as IBM Rational ClearCase works, you'll
    see a different and -- in my opinion -- rather cleaner and more
    transparent approach than a CLI-style interface. ClearCase presents
    what it calls VOBs -- virtual object bases -- which are synthetic disk
    volumes. The files and directory structures are instantiated from the
    contents of the underlying source pool and source code database. You
    can run a build right off the VOB. You'll also see many source code
    control systems tie more directly into development environment tools and
    processes.

    As for the selection and use of a source system by any organization,
    there's a whole lot of code and structure that gets built up around the
    environment -- not only do you have the migration to deal with, but all
    the supporting code and scaffolding that tends to accumulate around the
    source system has to be ported. For a small environment, this can be
    manageable and usually only ranges up to a massive disruption to the
    existing environment and processes. When you're working with line
    counts (well) north of IIRC 25 (VAX 32-bit pool) and 27 (64-bit) million
    lines of code as was the case for OpenVMS (and that was quite some time
    ago), migrating to a different source code tool gets rather more
    involved. (I'd guesstimate rather higher for the current source pool.)

    But this source control has little to do with the Linux kernel and the
    GNU (and non-GNU) tools, which is a fine and free and widely available
    operating system kernel and a widely-accepted set of tools and APIs.
    Given the exposure and the prevalence of git within the Linux kernel
    team and related projects, I'd certainly investigate that tool whenever
    a distributed source environment is required.

    Getting back to the OP and the discussion of bloat, any of the various
    Linux distros -- Ubuntu, Gentoo or other such -- would make a good
    choice for much of what JF might need an operating system for moving
    forward, as would his existing or a new Apple Mac system -- should JF
    (ever) decide to migrate off of OpenVMS. Solaris is also freely
    available. All of these are fully x86-64 capable for use on HP ProLiant
    (Solaris and Linux distros have been qualified on ProLiant, per HP) as
    well as all of the current Mac OS X options.

    There will eventually be a day when there won't be Linux -- that's the
    way of all products -- but there'll almost certainly be a successor or
    descendant or heir to the Linux environment. What that heir might look
    like is something we just don't know yet. But it is about as certain as
    anything in this business that the heir OS will have substantial Linux
    compatibility.


    --
    www.HoffmanLabs.com
    Services for OpenVMS
    (and former VDE devo)

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

    On 09/14/07 20:05, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > There will eventually be a day when there won't be Linux -- that's the
    > way of all products -- but there'll almost certainly be a successor or
    > descendant or heir to the Linux environment. What that heir might look
    > like is something we just don't know yet. But it is about as certain as
    > anything in this business that the heir OS will have substantial Linux
    > compatibility.


    FreeBSD?

    --
    Ron Johnson, Jr.
    Jefferson LA USA

    Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
    Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast