In article <0c92af3d-31d2-4b97-bfa6-9eac5e170f02@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
winston19842005@yahoo.com wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/3ga2ao
>
>I already added a comment saying I hope they will market VMS to the
>desktop. Anyone else here care to add a comment?

OK, thanks Alan - I seen my duty and I done it! Anyone else? DJD??

In article <0c92af3d-31d2-4b97-bfa6-9eac5e170f02@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
"winston19842005@yahoo.com" writes:
> http://tinyurl.com/3ga2ao
>
> I already added a comment saying I hope they will market VMS to the
> desktop. Anyone else here care to add a comment?

My boss mentioned the article to me and I said, "They already have another
OS, VMS". I was going to mention it here, but I see others have beat me
to it. Of course, what does it say about VMS when HP goes out after major
publicity in the trade rags for an OS they don't have yet while still
refusing to even mention the one they already have.

bill

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

> I already added a comment saying I hope they will
> market VMS to the desktop.

Why ?
There are other OS'es that's far better for the desktop.
I see no reason today why anyone would use VMS on
his/her desktop, apart from some die-hards and hobbyists.

For a business standpoint, VMS must be one of the
worst choises for the desktop today.

Jan-Erik.

In article <9WQyk.2299$U5.4881@newsb.telia.net>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan-Erik_S=F6derholm?= writes:
> > I already added a comment saying I hope they will
> > market VMS to the desktop.
>
>Why ?
>There are other OS'es that's far better for the desktop.
>I see no reason today why anyone would use VMS on
>his/her desktop, apart from some die-hards and hobbyists.
>
It depends what they mean by a new desktop OS. If they just mean their own
version of Linux then this is pretty much a non-story.
If they truly wanted a new desktop OS then using VMS as the base could be a
good way forward. Give VMS an implementation of fork which has been promised
for a while and porting most Unix/Linux applications would become a lot easier.
Then just upgrade its X-windows system with KDE or Gnome.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University





>For a business standpoint, VMS must be one of the
>worst choises for the desktop today.
>
>Jan-Erik.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 06:27:48 -0700, Bill Gunshannon
wrote:

> In article
> <0c92af3d-31d2-4b97-bfa6-9eac5e170f02@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
> "winston19842005@yahoo.com" writes:
>> http://tinyurl.com/3ga2ao
>>
>> I already added a comment saying I hope they will market VMS to the
>> desktop. Anyone else here care to add a comment?
>
> My boss mentioned the article to me and I said, "They already have
> another
> OS, VMS". I was going to mention it here, but I see others have beat me
> to it. Of course, what does it say about VMS when HP goes out after
> major
> publicity in the trade rags for an OS they don't have yet while still
> refusing to even mention the one they already have.
>
> bill
>

Is this not just a reaction to Ubantu from Dell?

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

Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:

> For a business standpoint, VMS must be one of the
> worst choises for the desktop today.

I disagree.

If HP put its weight behind VMS, you'd see VMS quickly gain the various
Linux graphic/X software and it would make it easy to get new modern
software onto VMS. (there had been some attempt at this when they ported
Mozilla to VMS with all the underlying middleware that is required for
this bloated piece of software, but unfortunatly, it did not become a
on-going project).

Consider the clustering capabilities and the ability to use CPU power of
people's PCs when they are at lunch or in a meeting etc etc. Consider
the clustering capabilities in terms of disk storage, software upgrades,
security etc etc.

Consider VMS's superior intrusion detection and logging.

It wouldn't become defactor standard overnight. But I think it would
become an interesting solution for corporate sites where not only would
they get a robust OS, but also robust support from HP. And if
maintenance costs were really much lower with VMS, then that would be an
advantage too. (fewer people needed to maintain a fleet of desktops and
servers).

Where there is a will, there is a way.

HP's CTO (is it still that Robison guy?) probably doesn't know VMS still
exists and doesn't know VMS' full capabilities. The question is whether
it would be cheaper to add VMS features to Linux, or update VMS to
support modern applications.


Now, consider if Apple were to license its OS so that Dell and HP could
build MACs. This would make for a a very intersting marketplace. And it
would put pressure on Microsoft to convert Windows to EFI based systems
(OS-X is based on EFI).

JF Mezei wrote:
> Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>
>> For a business standpoint, VMS must be one of the
>> worst choises for the desktop today.
>
> I disagree.
>
> If HP put its weight behind VMS, you'd see VMS quickly gain the various
> Linux graphic/X software and it would make it easy to get new modern
> software onto VMS. (there had been some attempt at this when they ported
> Mozilla to VMS with all the underlying middleware that is required for
> this bloated piece of software, but unfortunatly, it did not become a
> on-going project).
>
> Consider the clustering capabilities and the ability to use CPU power of
> people's PCs when they are at lunch or in a meeting etc etc. Consider
> the clustering capabilities in terms of disk storage, software upgrades,
> security etc etc.
>
> Consider VMS's superior intrusion detection and logging.
>
> It wouldn't become defactor standard overnight. But I think it would
> become an interesting solution for corporate sites where not only would
> they get a robust OS, but also robust support from HP. And if
> maintenance costs were really much lower with VMS, then that would be an
> advantage too. (fewer people needed to maintain a fleet of desktops and
> servers).
>
> Where there is a will, there is a way.
>
> HP's CTO (is it still that Robison guy?) probably doesn't know VMS still
> exists and doesn't know VMS' full capabilities. The question is whether
> it would be cheaper to add VMS features to Linux, or update VMS to
> support modern applications.
>

It has been obvious for years that DEC/Compaq/HP did not, do not, and
will not care about VMS! The handwriting has been on the wall for at
least the last thirteen years and I think a case could be made for
twenty-five years!

The only remedy that I can see is for someone to buy the rights to VMS
and try to market it. I suspect that anyone who did so would lose his
shirt!

If HP gave you VMS for free, you would have to employ the developers,
the technical writers, and the hardware and software support people.
That means a fairly large payroll. You would have to provide software
support for the VAX, Alpha, and Itanic platforms.

HP just MIGHT give you the rights to VMS if you would take over the
support. Remember, there are commitments to DOD and perhaps other
government agencies that would come with the package and would have to
be honored. Some of those commitments run through the year 2020 or
perhaps even longer.

--
draco vulgaris

Richard B. Gilbert schrieb:

> HP just MIGHT give you the rights to VMS if you would take over the
> support. Remember, there are commitments to DOD and perhaps other
> government agencies that would come with the package and would have to
> be honored. Some of those commitments run through the year 2020 or
> perhaps even longer.

I wonder how many of those DOD committments literally require
VMS. E.g. that JSTARS (sp ?) contract involved a couple of
alphas with a particular software functionality, maybe
not necessarily involving VMS. And even if so, HP might
fulfill the contract by devoting a handful of support engineers
to that project and dump VMS as far as the rest of the world
is concerned.

Jan-Erik Söderholm schrieb:
> > I already added a comment saying I hope they will
> > market VMS to the desktop.
>
> Why ?

because a cool native VMS desktop box would be
about the only way to attract younger people.

> There are other OS'es that's far better for the desktop.
> I see no reason today why anyone would use VMS on
> his/her desktop, apart from some die-hards and hobbyists.
>
> For a business standpoint, VMS must be one of the
> worst choises for the desktop today.

It had it's best days when it was sold as a desktop
system. The decline went parallel to the neglection
of the desktop.

"Bill Gunshannon" wrote in message
news:6j1tekF123akU2@mid.individual.net...
> In article
> <0c92af3d-31d2-4b97-bfa6-9eac5e170f02@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
> "winston19842005@yahoo.com" writes:
>> http://tinyurl.com/3ga2ao
>>
>> I already added a comment saying I hope they will market VMS to the
>> desktop. Anyone else here care to add a comment?
>
> My boss mentioned the article to me and I said, "They already have another
> OS, VMS". I was going to mention it here, but I see others have beat me
> to it. Of course, what does it say about VMS when HP goes out after major
> publicity in the trade rags for an OS they don't have yet while still
> refusing to even mention the one they already have.


If they suppport anything this way, it'll be NSK. What better way to move
customers up to a real production platform that they actively support and
sell (NeoView).