New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far - VMS

This is a discussion on New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far - VMS ; Hi Jan-Erik, You wrote: - > A web/http *server* is a logical part of any "server" platform today. And JF wrote: - > And web serving is now an important part > of a server since it is used a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

Thread: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far

  1. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Hi Jan-Erik,

    You wrote: -
    > A web/http *server* is a logical part of any "server" platform today.


    And JF wrote: -
    > And web serving is now an important part
    > of a server since it is used a lot to distribute information to clients
    > from the server.


    Strange bed-fellows indeed :-) but let me hastily add my voice to the
    chorus; web-servers are important! But then, presumably, if you believe
    people need to access *your* VMS webservers then surely it is only natural
    that you may have the odd fleeting desire to access *their* web servers as
    well? Yahoo? Google? Govt? If so, please tell me how you intend to do this?

    I have been here and in ITRC and anywhere else trying to drum up support for
    a XHR$ RTL a la mode de Ajax so that VMS 3GL clients may have at least some
    hope of contacting the plethora of RESTful servers on the internet; but to
    no avail :-(

    Hoff and Schweda say it's easy-peasy and JF says GTK is far more exciting,
    yet a bunch of hypocritcal bastards keep telling me that web-servers are
    important yet only for one way communication?

    SOAP headers on AJAX why not?

    Cheers Richard Maher

    PS. How much billable time has already been clocked up to gSOAP? Do those
    poor unsuspecting customers know how many "billable" hours they're paying
    for that are really going down to gSOAP?

    "Jan-Erik Söderholm" wrote in message
    news:ejHFk.3036$U5.13563@newsb.telia.net...
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    >
    > > What if you have an important remaining customer who has stated that
    > > they require GTK and some other middleware ?

    >
    > Does this have anything with reality to do ?
    > Or was it just something dreamed up ?
    >
    > I support VMS systems at two pretty large companies, and
    > I've never seen that need.
    >
    > Of course Richard is correct in that VMS is dead and has
    > been dead on the desktop for the last 10 years at least.
    > Trying to get (back?) to the desktop *now* is totaly wasted.
    >
    > > Porting a browser is the
    > > perfect project to not only port that middleware to VMS, but also to
    > > test it by compiling a browser with it before you hand it over to the
    > > customer.

    >
    > That might be correct in a way, but why not do it on some
    > usable software ?
    >
    > > Just because YOU don't see a need for that software doesn't mean that
    > > there isn't a business need for it.

    >
    > There just isn't, no matter what Righard or anyone else says.
    >
    >
    > > Funny, HP has the proprietary port of Apache for VMS, there is the OSU
    > > web server as well as WASD. I believe that even IBM has some web serving
    > > middleware available on VMS. And web serving is now an important part
    > > of a server since it is used a lot to distribute information to clients
    > > from the server.

    >
    > A web/http *server* is a logical part of any "server" platform today.
    > Bot not a browsers which this was all about...
    >




  2. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Richard Maher wrote:
    > Hi Jan-Erik,
    >
    > You wrote: -
    >> A web/http *server* is a logical part of any "server" platform today.

    >
    > And JF wrote: -
    >> And web serving is now an important part
    >> of a server since it is used a lot to distribute information to clients
    >> from the server.

    >
    > Strange bed-fellows indeed :-) but let me hastily add my voice to the
    > chorus; web-servers are important! But then, presumably, if you believe
    > people need to access *your* VMS webservers then surely it is only natural
    > that you may have the odd fleeting desire to access *their* web servers as
    > well?


    Sure, both from the same common desktop enviroment.
    Most of the time today MS Windows based, of course.

    I have no desire at all to Google from my VMS server,
    if that was what you ment...

    Jan-Erik.

  3. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    "Richard Maher" wrote in message
    news:gca5iq$sgp$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
    >
    > Strange bed-fellows indeed :-) but let me hastily add my voice to the
    > chorus; web-servers are important! But then, presumably, if you believe
    > people need to access *your* VMS webservers then surely it is only natural
    > that you may have the odd fleeting desire to access *their* web servers as
    > well? Yahoo? Google? Govt? If so, please tell me how you intend to do
    > this?
    >


    I work in a mostly Windows Server environment while I administer the only 2
    VMS machines there. We do not allow browsing from any of the servers,
    Windows included. Browsing to other peoples web servers is the job of the
    client machines with people actually logged into them...none of our servers
    are used for interactive work. The only exception to this is the 2 Citrix
    servers which are feeding the bulk of our users desktops.

    When there is a need to browse from a server, there is a procedure to
    request that access through the firewall. Access is then turned off again
    before the end of shift.


  4. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Hi Jan-Erik,

    > I have no desire at all to Google from my VMS server,
    > if that was what you ment...


    No it is not what I meant.

    Previously you have stated your customers' need to access SOAP services from
    VMS; I submit to you that more and more sites are choosing to publish their
    services via a RESTful HTTP interface. I only used Google maps or Yahoo mail
    as examples.

    Of course if we had such an XHR$ library on VMS, sticking the SOAP headers
    in front of the call would be as simple as it is in AJAX.

    Cheers Richard Maher

    "Jan-Erik Söderholm" wrote in message
    news:UF1Gk.3058$U5.13743@newsb.telia.net...
    > Richard Maher wrote:
    > > Hi Jan-Erik,
    > >
    > > You wrote: -
    > >> A web/http *server* is a logical part of any "server" platform today.

    > >
    > > And JF wrote: -
    > >> And web serving is now an important part
    > >> of a server since it is used a lot to distribute information to clients
    > >> from the server.

    > >
    > > Strange bed-fellows indeed :-) but let me hastily add my voice to the
    > > chorus; web-servers are important! But then, presumably, if you believe
    > > people need to access *your* VMS webservers then surely it is only

    natural
    > > that you may have the odd fleeting desire to access *their* web servers

    as
    > > well?

    >
    > Sure, both from the same common desktop enviroment.
    > Most of the time today MS Windows based, of course.
    >
    > I have no desire at all to Google from my VMS server,
    > if that was what you ment...
    >
    > Jan-Erik.




  5. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Hi Steven,

    > When there is a need to browse from a server, there is a procedure to
    > request that access through the firewall. Access is then turned off again
    > before the end of shift.


    I am *not* talking about browsing from a server! I am talking about an XML
    HTTP Request as the currently popular Remote Procedural Call API. Lets
    forget the Internet for the moment and imagine someone has written a
    Perl/CGI or PHP script that returns some data (insert your own example here)
    how would you currently access that from a VMS 3GL?

    Look, I hate HTTP for many reasons but, like it or loathe it, there is a
    growing number of sites publishing a lot more than web-pages via this
    mechanism. We don't need to browse from VMS but Ajax is still very useful
    outsite the browser.

    Cheers Richard Maher

    "Steven Underwood" wrote in message
    news:Tx6Gk.1122$OY7.243@newsfe06.iad...
    > "Richard Maher" wrote in message
    > news:gca5iq$sgp$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
    > >
    > > Strange bed-fellows indeed :-) but let me hastily add my voice to the
    > > chorus; web-servers are important! But then, presumably, if you believe
    > > people need to access *your* VMS webservers then surely it is only

    natural
    > > that you may have the odd fleeting desire to access *their* web servers

    as
    > > well? Yahoo? Google? Govt? If so, please tell me how you intend to do
    > > this?
    > >

    >
    > I work in a mostly Windows Server environment while I administer the only

    2
    > VMS machines there. We do not allow browsing from any of the servers,
    > Windows included. Browsing to other peoples web servers is the job of the
    > client machines with people actually logged into them...none of our

    servers
    > are used for interactive work. The only exception to this is the 2 Citrix
    > servers which are feeding the bulk of our users desktops.
    >
    > When there is a need to browse from a server, there is a procedure to
    > request that access through the firewall. Access is then turned off again


    > before the end of shift.
    >




  6. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Richard Maher wrote:
    > Hi Jan-Erik,
    >
    >> I have no desire at all to Google from my VMS server,
    >> if that was what you ment...

    >
    > No it is not what I meant.
    >
    > Previously you have stated your customers' need to access SOAP services from
    > VMS;


    Ah, OK, got it... :-)

    Yes, I do believe there is a need for support of Web-Services
    based application-to-application communication. But that's
    a whole other issue then users "surfing" which I thought
    you where asking about. Sorry about that...

    And, for the record, if I have talked about any actual need
    for SOAP at the moment, it's in an application of my
    own, not (currently) at my current customers.

    Jan-Erik.

  7. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Hi again,
    Speaking of corrections, I meant Yahoo Weather (not mail)
    Cheers Richard maher

    "Jan-Erik Söderholm" wrote in message
    news:YnbGk.3070$U5.13451@newsb.telia.net...
    > Richard Maher wrote:
    > > Hi Jan-Erik,
    > >
    > >> I have no desire at all to Google from my VMS server,
    > >> if that was what you ment...

    > >
    > > No it is not what I meant.
    > >
    > > Previously you have stated your customers' need to access SOAP services

    from
    > > VMS;

    >
    > Ah, OK, got it... :-)
    >
    > Yes, I do believe there is a need for support of Web-Services
    > based application-to-application communication. But that's
    > a whole other issue then users "surfing" which I thought
    > you where asking about. Sorry about that...
    >
    > And, for the record, if I have talked about any actual need
    > for SOAP at the moment, it's in an application of my
    > own, not (currently) at my current customers.
    >
    > Jan-Erik.




  8. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    "Richard Maher" wrote in message
    news:gcbe51$94l$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...
    > Hi Steven,
    >
    >> When there is a need to browse from a server, there is a procedure to
    >> request that access through the firewall. Access is then turned off
    >> again
    >> before the end of shift.

    >
    > I am *not* talking about browsing from a server! I am talking about an XML
    > HTTP Request as the currently popular Remote Procedural Call API. Lets
    > forget the Internet for the moment and imagine someone has written a
    > Perl/CGI or PHP script that returns some data (insert your own example
    > here)
    > how would you currently access that from a VMS 3GL?
    >



    Our web servers do not get any information from outside sources, only
    internal databases via ODBC, so I can not speak to your scenario. As I
    said, none of our servers have the ability to get anything via the internet.
    Our case may not be typical, however.


  9. Re: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far

    Tom Linden wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:31:28 -0700, JF Mezei
    >> As to whether new development of Seamonkey on VMS might come to Alpha,
    >> this is an interesting question. If this is still beta, I could
    >> understand that it would be on a single platform, and once beta is done,
    >> they may cross compile the whole kit and kaboodle onto Alpha. (building
    >> the beast is very involved and requires a whole lot of middleware not
    >> only for the code, but also to modify/generate code for that platform.

    >
    > Why on earth would VMS engr spend the resources to do this, I mean who
    > really
    > gives a tinkers damn? And while we're at it, drop CSWB, we have WASD,
    > which
    > is far better supported.


    CSWS ?

    I agree that web browser for VMS should be a very low priority. They
    are not exactly selling many VMS boxes for the desktop.

    But I also think that they could get a browser relative cheap if
    they did it smart. A HP branded browser with closed source maintained
    by HP is not the smart way. Get the low level patches to build a
    standard FireFox on VMS into the standard source code and let people
    build the new versions themselves. I doubt it will be that often
    a new FF version requires something new at the OS close level. And
    even id it did happen, then some non-HP VMS users could actually fix
    it.

    I strongly disagree regarding CSWS. Web servers are a must have
    today. And I am a bit skeptical about WASD being able to replace
    CSWS for all purposes. Some users may have specific requirements for
    Apache modules.

    Arne

  10. Re: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far

    urbancamo wrote:
    > Is the source code not available for the OpenVMS port? I am assuming
    > that the mozilla licensing requires the source code to be published
    > for derivatives, but I could be wrong.


    Mozilla licensing is a nightmare. The code is under triple
    license: GPL, LGPL and MPL.

    If they take it under GPL, then everything in the EXE must
    be open sources.

    If they take it under LGPL or MPL then modifications
    to the open source code must be open source, but separate
    software can be kept closed source.

    Arne



  11. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
    > Digital/Compaq told the companies writing database applications not to write
    > them for VMS. VMS was just for the backend database.
    > Digital/Compaqs view was that Windows was for the client, Unix was for the
    > application layer and the secure VMS was for the backend database.


    As I recall it then it was NT for app tier as well back in
    the "Palmer days".

    Arne

  12. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > What if you have an important remaining customer who has stated that
    > they require GTK and some other middleware ? Porting a browser is the
    > perfect project to not only port that middleware to VMS, but also to
    > test it by compiling a browser with it before you hand it over to the
    > customer.


    GTK is not middleware.

    > Just because YOU don't see a need for that software doesn't mean that
    > there isn't a business need for it.


    Desktop apps for VMS are not big business.

    > Besides, this is a small cost to be able to give the C.O.V. peanut
    > gallery some good news so that we stop "HP is killing VMS" messages for
    > a few weeks.


    If they do it smart, then it should not cost much (see previous
    post for a definition of smart).

    Arne

  13. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Richard Maher wrote:
    > Previously you have stated your customers' need to access SOAP services from
    > VMS; I submit to you that more and more sites are choosing to publish their
    > services via a RESTful HTTP interface. I only used Google maps or Yahoo mail
    > as examples.


    REST has been hyped a lot the last few years.

    But my impression is that it is finding a natural level now.

    And note that just because REST is very popular with the
    public web services does not imply that all the internal web
    services are also on done via REST. It just reflects that
    the nature of those public services is a very good fit for
    the REST approach. The majority of the more complex stuff
    are still done with SOAP.

    Seen from the VMS perspective then REST is easy, because it
    only requires HTTP and XML parser capability - unlike SOAP
    that for all practical purposes require a SOAP toolkit.

    Arne


  14. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    On Oct 5, 4:53*am, "Richard Maher"
    wrote:
    > Hi Michael,
    >
    > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >
    > 'cos it's the best server on the planet you ****ing idiot!
    >
    > If only the incompetent, self-serving, vms-appologists at HP would open the
    > flood-gates and let the users *INTEGRATE* their VMS apps with this
    > feature-rich, cheap, ubiquitous, full-function client platform(s) then maybe
    > we might get somewhere?
    >
    > Regards Richard Maher
    >
    > "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message
    >
    > news:gc9spk$1lc$00$1@news.t-online.com...
    >
    > > Richard Maher schrieb:

    >
    > > > Personally, I love FireFox and Firebug! I love Flex (and FlexBuilder)! I
    > > > love .NET (a bit less)! Silverlight is getting better! I love Java

    > Applets!
    > > > (and the new 1.6_10 jnlp deployment options) I love Chrome's Application
    > > > Launch shortcuts! I love HTML/DOM/Javascript! I love the price of

    > laptops,
    > > > PCs and Macs! I have no problem with Windows! *And so do the users!*

    >
    > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?


    Amen brother 0 thou do preach to the choir!

    I've said it before and I will say it yet again, from a dead zero
    start, I've put in five VMS installations in a little less than a
    year, including the time to convert the darn software, spec out RX26xx
    servers, install em, and even - get this -
    *get paid!*

    If 100 more people would get out there and evangelize VMS, a whole
    hell of a lot of GOOD things would happen.
    It is a GREAT server, and affordable.

    Now if they would just hurry up with 8.4 so I could run the thing in
    an Integrity Virtual Machine, boy would I ever be a happy duck!

    -Paul


  15. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    In article <871eaafc-2d55-41cd-82c2-cd1f9882ba57@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
    PR writes:
    > On Oct 5, 4:53*am, "Richard Maher"
    > wrote:
    >> Hi Michael,
    >>
    >> > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >>
    >> 'cos it's the best server on the planet you ****ing idiot!
    >>
    >> If only the incompetent, self-serving, vms-appologists at HP would open the
    >> flood-gates and let the users *INTEGRATE* their VMS apps with this
    >> feature-rich, cheap, ubiquitous, full-function client platform(s) then maybe
    >> we might get somewhere?
    >>
    >> Regards Richard Maher
    >>
    >> "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:gc9spk$1lc$00$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>
    >> > Richard Maher schrieb:

    >>
    >> > > Personally, I love FireFox and Firebug! I love Flex (and FlexBuilder)! I
    >> > > love .NET (a bit less)! Silverlight is getting better! I love Java

    >> Applets!
    >> > > (and the new 1.6_10 jnlp deployment options) I love Chrome's Application
    >> > > Launch shortcuts! I love HTML/DOM/Javascript! I love the price of

    >> laptops,
    >> > > PCs and Macs! I have no problem with Windows! *And so do the users!*

    >>
    >> > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    > Amen brother 0 thou do preach to the choir!
    > I've said it before and I will say it yet again, from a dead zero
    > start, I've put in five VMS installations in a little less than a
    > year, including the time to convert the darn software, spec out RX26xx
    > servers, install em, and even - get this -
    > *get paid!*
    > If 100 more people would get out there and evangelize VMS, a whole
    > hell of a lot of GOOD things would happen.


    Yeah, that will be great great for youyr career. I did it here for
    years and I can still hear then snickering when I walk by in the hall
    as they whisper to each other, "There goes our resident dinosaur".
    I just recently had someone visiting the department on business look
    at my Storageworks Cabinet and comment on it's obsoleteness.

    > It is a GREAT server, and affordable.


    How is VMS more affordable than Windows? We pay something like $300-600
    a year and can run any and as much MS Server software as we want. No doubt
    it's a great server, but technical superiority has never been a requirement
    in this industry.

    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

  16. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    On Oct 8, 7:46*am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    > In article <871eaafc-2d55-41cd-82c2-cd1f9882b...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
    > * * * * PR writes:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Oct 5, 4:53*am, "Richard Maher"
    > > wrote:
    > >> Hi Michael,

    >
    > >> > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >
    > >> 'cos it's the best server on the planet you ****ing idiot!

    >
    > >> If only the incompetent, self-serving, vms-appologists at HP would open the
    > >> flood-gates and let the users *INTEGRATE* their VMS apps with this
    > >> feature-rich, cheap, ubiquitous, full-function client platform(s) thenmaybe
    > >> we might get somewhere?

    >
    > >> Regards Richard Maher

    >
    > >> "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message

    >
    > >>news:gc9spk$1lc$00$1@news.t-online.com...

    >
    > >> > Richard Maher schrieb:

    >
    > >> > > Personally, I love FireFox and Firebug! I love Flex (and FlexBuilder)! I
    > >> > > love .NET (a bit less)! Silverlight is getting better! I love Java
    > >> Applets!
    > >> > > (and the new 1.6_10 jnlp deployment options) I love Chrome's Application
    > >> > > Launch shortcuts! I love HTML/DOM/Javascript! I love the price of
    > >> laptops,
    > >> > > PCs and Macs! I have no problem with Windows! *And so do the users!*

    >
    > >> > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    > > Amen brother *0 thou do preach to the choir!
    > > I've said it before and I will say it yet again, from a dead zero
    > > start, I've put in five VMS installations in a little less than a
    > > year, including the time to convert the darn software, spec out RX26xx
    > > servers, install em, and even - get this -
    > > *get paid!*
    > > If 100 more people would get out there and evangelize VMS, a whole
    > > hell of a lot of GOOD things would happen.

    >
    > Yeah, that will be great great for youyr career. *I did it here for
    > years and I can still hear then snickering when I walk by in the hall
    > as they whisper to each other, "There goes our resident dinosaur".
    > I just recently had someone visiting the department on business look
    > at my Storageworks Cabinet and comment on it's obsoleteness.
    >


    I don't get laughed at, though people are often laughing with me.
    Especially customers who get what they need at a price that is fair
    and affordable.

    Most especially when we have figured out a way to outsmart the
    "common wisdom". Who needs "common" wisdom anyway? That just pretty
    much means you are running with the herd - not that you are doing
    things "right".


    > > It is a GREAT server, and affordable.

    >
    > How is VMS more affordable than Windows? *We pay something like $300-600
    > a year and can run any and as much MS Server software as we want. *No doubt
    > it's a great server, but technical superiority has never been a requirement
    > in this industry.
    >


    Even with educational discounts, I fail to see how your $600 per
    person works. And it *certainly* does not work for business, where
    discounts are more in the 20 to 30 percent range on "market priced"
    Microsoft products.

    Windows Vista or XP, A Windows Server license, a Windows Server CAL,
    and Exchange CAL, a Terminal Services CAL, MS Office license,
    AntiVirus license, and custom software license.

    I can put a small VMS system, and MacOS on the desktops (or LInux), in
    a site and make it all work for a heck of a lot less than the cost of
    Windos. At least in the vertical markets where I sell my software. And
    it makes a hell of a difference the the bottom line in a small
    business - a concept foreign indeed to some of your colleagues in
    academia.

    I will grant you that in large business settings, there are other
    operators that come into play and make it difficult to move in VMS and
    phase out Winders, but those factors are not present at all in the SMB
    world, and melt away in the face of hard cold facts in most rational
    large businesses.

    VMS is far from dead, it is easily sold into the right markets, and
    far from being ignored by HP sales reps. It is often not promoted
    because they do not understand it, nor do they have any idea how to
    evaluate it in a business situation. Ignorance like that, is easily
    corrected. The expertise and support *is* available from HP.

    Don't get me wrong, VMS is far from perfect, and in some ways, the
    existence of the hobbyist world is holding VMS back from being
    embraced by the business world. It *is* kinda cool to watch something
    old world, like a PDP-11 or a MicroVAX. But it is not presenting a
    great face to the potential buyers. YMMV.


    -Paul

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



  17. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    In article <355b41ea-08b9-4a37-873d-a72620a8881d@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
    PR writes:
    > On Oct 8, 7:46*am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >> In article <871eaafc-2d55-41cd-82c2-cd1f9882b...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
    >> * * * * PR writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > On Oct 5, 4:53*am, "Richard Maher"
    >> > wrote:
    >> >> Hi Michael,

    >>
    >> >> > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >>
    >> >> 'cos it's the best server on the planet you ****ing idiot!

    >>
    >> >> If only the incompetent, self-serving, vms-appologists at HP would open the
    >> >> flood-gates and let the users *INTEGRATE* their VMS apps with this
    >> >> feature-rich, cheap, ubiquitous, full-function client platform(s) then maybe
    >> >> we might get somewhere?

    >>
    >> >> Regards Richard Maher

    >>
    >> >> "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message

    >>
    >> >>news:gc9spk$1lc$00$1@news.t-online.com...

    >>
    >> >> > Richard Maher schrieb:

    >>
    >> >> > > Personally, I love FireFox and Firebug! I love Flex (and FlexBuilder)! I
    >> >> > > love .NET (a bit less)! Silverlight is getting better! I love Java
    >> >> Applets!
    >> >> > > (and the new 1.6_10 jnlp deployment options) I love Chrome's Application
    >> >> > > Launch shortcuts! I love HTML/DOM/Javascript! I love the price of
    >> >> laptops,
    >> >> > > PCs and Macs! I have no problem with Windows! *And so do the users!*

    >>
    >> >> > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?
    >> > Amen brother *0 thou do preach to the choir!
    >> > I've said it before and I will say it yet again, from a dead zero
    >> > start, I've put in five VMS installations in a little less than a
    >> > year, including the time to convert the darn software, spec out RX26xx
    >> > servers, install em, and even - get this -
    >> > *get paid!*
    >> > If 100 more people would get out there and evangelize VMS, a whole
    >> > hell of a lot of GOOD things would happen.

    >>
    >> Yeah, that will be great great for youyr career. *I did it here for
    >> years and I can still hear then snickering when I walk by in the hall
    >> as they whisper to each other, "There goes our resident dinosaur".
    >> I just recently had someone visiting the department on business look
    >> at my Storageworks Cabinet and comment on it's obsoleteness.
    >>

    > I don't get laughed at, though people are often laughing with me.


    Keep telling yourself that.

    > Especially customers who get what they need at a price that is fair
    > and affordable.
    > Most especially when we have figured out a way to outsmart the
    > "common wisdom". Who needs "common" wisdom anyway? That just pretty
    > much means you are running with the herd - not that you are doing
    > things "right".


    "right" is very hard to define but probably the best is delivering what
    the customer wants. How many want VMS anymore?

    >> > It is a GREAT server, and affordable.

    >>
    >> How is VMS more affordable than Windows? *We pay something like $300-600
    >> a year and can run any and as much MS Server software as we want. *No doubt
    >> it's a great server, but technical superiority has never been a requirement
    >> in this industry.
    >>

    > Even with educational discounts, I fail to see how your $600 per
    > person works.


    I didn't say per person. $300-600(I don't know the exact amount as I
    don't sign the check). Period. And we get to install as many copies of
    any OS and development product as we want. We can even provide copies
    to bona fide students that they can take with them when they leave.
    Quite a difference from the VMS Edu Program even at its best.

    > And it *certainly* does not work for business, where
    > discounts are more in the 20 to 30 percent range on "market priced"
    > Microsoft products.
    > Windows Vista or XP, A Windows Server license, a Windows Server CAL,
    > and Exchange CAL, a Terminal Services CAL, MS Office license,
    > AntiVirus license, and custom software license.
    > I can put a small VMS system, and MacOS on the desktops (or LInux), in
    > a site and make it all work for a heck of a lot less than the cost of
    > Windos.


    And now we are back to the othewr problem with VMS that has been pointed
    out here time and time again. You have to rely on other OSes to fill in
    all the holes. That means additional cost, additional hardware and
    additional needed expertise.

    > At least in the vertical markets where I sell my software. And
    > it makes a hell of a difference the the bottom line in a small
    > business - a concept foreign indeed to some of your colleagues in
    > academia.


    I think others here will confirm that "small businesses" are not in
    VMS's remaining target area. In "small businesses" VMS can't possibly
    compete with its main competitor, Linux. A lot cheaper and a whole
    lot easier to find the expertise needed to get it up and keep it there.
    You can knock academia all you want but remember, it was the exposure to
    Unix in academia that out it where it is today and VMS has completely
    lost any of that exposure while MS is courting it constantly. Guess
    which one knows which side their bread is buttered on?

    > I will grant you that in large business settings, there are other
    > operators that come into play and make it difficult to move in VMS and
    > phase out Winders, but those factors are not present at all in the SMB
    > world, and melt away in the face of hard cold facts in most rational
    > large businesses.
    > VMS is far from dead, it is easily sold into the right markets, and
    > far from being ignored by HP sales reps. It is often not promoted


    "often not"!! It is never promoted except to those who already know
    about it.

    > because they do not understand it, nor do they have any idea how to
    > evaluate it in a business situation. Ignorance like that, is easily
    > corrected. The expertise and support *is* available from HP.


    That is very much at odds with the continuous comments here from people
    who have been doing VMS for a lot longer than I have. How many people
    who are/were regular posters here have we seen leave the VMS fold, not
    because they wanted to but because they have families to feed.

    > Don't get me wrong, VMS is far from perfect, and in some ways, the
    > existence of the hobbyist world is holding VMS back from being
    > embraced by the business world.


    Now that's funny. If it were not for the hobbyist program there would
    be little more than a very small handful of machines still running. I
    would be willing to bet there are more hobbyist systems running that
    commercial ones. And hobbyist program or not, the business world does
    not even know about VMS any more and those who do think it died years
    ago. And I have been told that to my face by someone at a Fortune 100
    company who was not at all willing to listen to any argument to the
    contrary.

    > It *is* kinda cool to watch something
    > old world, like a PDP-11 or a MicroVAX. But it is not presenting a
    > great face to the potential buyers. YMMV.


    I often wonder if we have reached the point where there are now more
    commercial PDP-11's running than VMS systems. Because the VMS constant
    is unchanging, we may never know.

    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

  18. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    PR wrote:
    >
    > On Oct 5, 4:53 am, "Richard Maher"
    > wrote:
    > > Hi Michael,
    > >
    > > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    > >
    > > 'cos it's the best server on the planet you ****ing idiot!
    > >
    > > If only the incompetent, self-serving, vms-appologists at HP would open the
    > > flood-gates and let the users *INTEGRATE* their VMS apps with this
    > > feature-rich, cheap, ubiquitous, full-function client platform(s) then maybe
    > > we might get somewhere?
    > >
    > > Regards Richard Maher
    > >
    > > "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message
    > >
    > > news:gc9spk$1lc$00$1@news.t-online.com...
    > >
    > > > Richard Maher schrieb:

    > >
    > > > > Personally, I love FireFox and Firebug! I love Flex (and FlexBuilder)! I
    > > > > love .NET (a bit less)! Silverlight is getting better! I love Java

    > > Applets!
    > > > > (and the new 1.6_10 jnlp deployment options) I love Chrome's Application
    > > > > Launch shortcuts! I love HTML/DOM/Javascript! I love the price of

    > > laptops,
    > > > > PCs and Macs! I have no problem with Windows! *And so do the users!*

    > >
    > > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >
    > Amen brother 0 thou do preach to the choir!
    >
    > I've said it before and I will say it yet again, from a dead zero
    > start, I've put in five VMS installations in a little less than a
    > year, including the time to convert the darn software, spec out RX26xx
    > servers, install em, and even - get this -
    > *get paid!*


    O.k. You've told us THAT you did it. Well Done! Congrats!

    Now, tell us HOW you did it.

    > If 100 more people would get out there and evangelize VMS, a whole
    > hell of a lot of GOOD things would happen.
    > It is a GREAT server, and affordable.


    Again, tell us HOW you did/do it.

    Success leaves clues. Find the clues, document the process and make it
    REPEATABLE!

    > Now if they would just hurry up with 8.4 so I could run the thing in
    > an Integrity Virtual Machine, boy would I ever be a happy duck!


    Why not run it on I64 "bare metal" and be even happier? (No PH-UX to
    deal with!)

    D.J.D.

  19. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    On Oct 10, 9:28*pm, David J Dachtera
    wrote:
    > PR wrote:
    >
    > > On Oct 5, 4:53 am, "Richard Maher"
    > > wrote:
    > > > Hi Michael,

    >
    > > > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >
    > > > 'cos it's the best server on the planet you ****ing idiot!

    >
    > > > If only the incompetent, self-serving, vms-appologists at HP would open the
    > > > flood-gates and let the users *INTEGRATE* their VMS apps with this
    > > > feature-rich, cheap, ubiquitous, full-function client platform(s) then maybe
    > > > we might get somewhere?

    >
    > > > Regards Richard Maher

    >
    > > > "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message

    >
    > > >news:gc9spk$1lc$00$1@news.t-online.com...

    >
    > > > > Richard Maher schrieb:

    >
    > > > > > Personally, I love FireFox and Firebug! I love Flex (and FlexBuilder)! I
    > > > > > love .NET (a bit less)! Silverlight is getting better! I love Java
    > > > Applets!
    > > > > > (and the new 1.6_10 jnlp deployment options) I love Chrome's Application
    > > > > > Launch shortcuts! I love HTML/DOM/Javascript! I love the price of
    > > > laptops,
    > > > > > PCs and Macs! I have no problem with Windows! *And so do the users!*

    >
    > > > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >
    > > Amen brother *0 thou do preach to the choir!

    >
    > > I've said it before and I will say it yet again, from a dead zero
    > > start, I've put in five VMS installations in a little less than a
    > > year, including the time to convert the darn software, spec out RX26xx
    > > servers, install em, and even - get this -
    > > *get paid!*

    >
    > O.k. You've told us THAT you did it. Well Done! Congrats!
    >
    > Now, tell us HOW you did it.
    >


    The how is simple, I already have software in the field, though it is
    running on other platforms. One of my clients wanted to upgrade and
    the platform they were on was just too expensive to stay on and
    upgrade. So they asked for an alternative, and yes indeed, they
    suggested Windows.

    This is where it got really easy - I just put the facts, mostly
    numbers, down on paper for them.

    The VMS based solution sold itself based purely on the numbers. This
    particular customer has 110 terminals scattered around 4 locations,
    and replacing all those with Windows based machines was a big cost
    factor. I did replace them by the way, but with a very basic PC
    running Linux. Total cost for the PC's and the network gear and
    install was less than the cost of buying Windows and a Windows
    terminal emulator. Also, no real problem with virii. Just everything
    came together. (Now, I tore my hair out getting the software
    converted. And VMS really needs some kind of block mode terminal
    emulation... in fact I have that about 3/4 of the way done. It makes
    the server responses seem lightening fast, even over a pretty slow
    remote link.)

    And boy are they happy. My software looks and acts just about the same
    under VMS and it does under z/OS or on an iSeries machine. Sweet. Much
    lower cost to deploy.

    And when the owner of that particular company was out golfing one
    afternoon, his golfing partner was complaining about his software
    costs. Of course, he turned his partner on to me... and the first new
    sale happened. It was smaller, about 50 PC's on an existing network. A
    modified Putty took care of the terminal problems there. Another happy
    customer.

    And so it went - 4 more times. And a couple existing customers are
    wanting to move to the HP solution, as soon as I have time to do it.

    The how is easy.


    > > If 100 more people would get out there and evangelize VMS, a whole
    > > hell of a lot of GOOD things would happen.
    > > It is a GREAT server, and affordable.

    >
    > Again, tell us HOW you did/do it.
    >

    You talk to people, and you prove to them that VMS is not something
    mysterious or arcane or unsupported or whatever. Mostly you TALK to
    them. And there is no need to complain about how something or another
    seems to have poor support - after all - YOU are going to support it
    aren't you?

    Talk to them. Just tell them the truth - VMS is a GREAT OS and we can
    use it to cost effectively put a solution in place for you. The only
    catch is you have to believe in the OS and in your software.


    > Success leaves clues. Find the clues, document the process and make it
    > REPEATABLE!
    >


    It is more engineering than science, and actually, more art than
    engineering. You just have to believe in what you are trying to sell
    them.
    If you don't believe in it, what they heck are you doing selling it in
    the first place? It isn't ethical to do that to begin with.

    > > Now if they would just hurry up with 8.4 so I could run the thing in
    > > an Integrity Virtual Machine, boy would I ever be a happy duck!

    >
    > Why not run it on I64 "bare metal" and be even happier? (No PH-UX to
    > deal with!)
    >


    I do of course, but the machine I was thinking of is one of my
    development machines, and like any small business, I have to squeeze
    every last nickel, make everything as efficient as possible, and
    control every single cost. It isn't any fun, but it keeps the business
    from going bankrupt - or my credit card from maxing out!

    I use a single Itanium machine to run HP-UX, Linux, and Windows.
    Running VMS as a VM would be more cost effective and efficient than
    having to constantly boot into and out of VMS.

    -Paul


    > D.J.D.



  20. Re: Elvis is dead - get over it!

    Hi Paul,

    Congatulations with the software port and especially the *new* VMS
    customers!

    > And VMS really needs some kind of block mode terminal
    > emulation...


    I am at a loss to know why anyone would want to do this. Having said that,
    you may wish to look at the VMS Forms products: -

    .. TDMS (which has *just* been ported to Alpha, and presumably Itanium, in
    another amazing example VMS Management vacillations and ineptitude) TDMS was
    sort of block-mode for ACMS (our CICS-like TP monitor)

    .. FMS which has some form of IBM3270 emulation mode

    Unfortunately the license fees for these moth-balled products are not cheap
    and all of the new-feature-enabling revenue goes to DECforms (a product
    which you don't want to touch with a barge-pole)

    What does the product do? What language? Java or have you looked at the SMG$
    run-time library?

    Why not use a browser for display?

    Cheers Richard Maher

    "PR" wrote in message
    news:899f1c14-d2f2-4ece-8c08-1748188ccf48@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    On Oct 10, 9:28 pm, David J Dachtera
    wrote:
    > PR wrote:
    >
    > > On Oct 5, 4:53 am, "Richard Maher"
    > > wrote:
    > > > Hi Michael,

    >
    > > > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >
    > > > 'cos it's the best server on the planet you ****ing idiot!

    >
    > > > If only the incompetent, self-serving, vms-appologists at HP would

    open the
    > > > flood-gates and let the users *INTEGRATE* their VMS apps with this
    > > > feature-rich, cheap, ubiquitous, full-function client platform(s) then

    maybe
    > > > we might get somewhere?

    >
    > > > Regards Richard Maher

    >
    > > > "Michael Kraemer" wrote in message

    >
    > > >news:gc9spk$1lc$00$1@news.t-online.com...

    >
    > > > > Richard Maher schrieb:

    >
    > > > > > Personally, I love FireFox and Firebug! I love Flex (and

    FlexBuilder)! I
    > > > > > love .NET (a bit less)! Silverlight is getting better! I love Java
    > > > Applets!
    > > > > > (and the new 1.6_10 jnlp deployment options) I love Chrome's

    Application
    > > > > > Launch shortcuts! I love HTML/DOM/Javascript! I love the price of
    > > > laptops,
    > > > > > PCs and Macs! I have no problem with Windows! *And so do the

    users!*
    >
    > > > > Then why do you bother with VMS at all?

    >
    > > Amen brother 0 thou do preach to the choir!

    >
    > > I've said it before and I will say it yet again, from a dead zero
    > > start, I've put in five VMS installations in a little less than a
    > > year, including the time to convert the darn software, spec out RX26xx
    > > servers, install em, and even - get this -
    > > *get paid!*

    >
    > O.k. You've told us THAT you did it. Well Done! Congrats!
    >
    > Now, tell us HOW you did it.
    >


    The how is simple, I already have software in the field, though it is
    running on other platforms. One of my clients wanted to upgrade and
    the platform they were on was just too expensive to stay on and
    upgrade. So they asked for an alternative, and yes indeed, they
    suggested Windows.

    This is where it got really easy - I just put the facts, mostly
    numbers, down on paper for them.

    The VMS based solution sold itself based purely on the numbers. This
    particular customer has 110 terminals scattered around 4 locations,
    and replacing all those with Windows based machines was a big cost
    factor. I did replace them by the way, but with a very basic PC
    running Linux. Total cost for the PC's and the network gear and
    install was less than the cost of buying Windows and a Windows
    terminal emulator. Also, no real problem with virii. Just everything
    came together. (Now, I tore my hair out getting the software
    converted. And VMS really needs some kind of block mode terminal
    emulation... in fact I have that about 3/4 of the way done. It makes
    the server responses seem lightening fast, even over a pretty slow
    remote link.)

    And boy are they happy. My software looks and acts just about the same
    under VMS and it does under z/OS or on an iSeries machine. Sweet. Much
    lower cost to deploy.

    And when the owner of that particular company was out golfing one
    afternoon, his golfing partner was complaining about his software
    costs. Of course, he turned his partner on to me... and the first new
    sale happened. It was smaller, about 50 PC's on an existing network. A
    modified Putty took care of the terminal problems there. Another happy
    customer.

    And so it went - 4 more times. And a couple existing customers are
    wanting to move to the HP solution, as soon as I have time to do it.

    The how is easy.


    > > If 100 more people would get out there and evangelize VMS, a whole
    > > hell of a lot of GOOD things would happen.
    > > It is a GREAT server, and affordable.

    >
    > Again, tell us HOW you did/do it.
    >

    You talk to people, and you prove to them that VMS is not something
    mysterious or arcane or unsupported or whatever. Mostly you TALK to
    them. And there is no need to complain about how something or another
    seems to have poor support - after all - YOU are going to support it
    aren't you?

    Talk to them. Just tell them the truth - VMS is a GREAT OS and we can
    use it to cost effectively put a solution in place for you. The only
    catch is you have to believe in the OS and in your software.


    > Success leaves clues. Find the clues, document the process and make it
    > REPEATABLE!
    >


    It is more engineering than science, and actually, more art than
    engineering. You just have to believe in what you are trying to sell
    them.
    If you don't believe in it, what they heck are you doing selling it in
    the first place? It isn't ethical to do that to begin with.

    > > Now if they would just hurry up with 8.4 so I could run the thing in
    > > an Integrity Virtual Machine, boy would I ever be a happy duck!

    >
    > Why not run it on I64 "bare metal" and be even happier? (No PH-UX to
    > deal with!)
    >


    I do of course, but the machine I was thinking of is one of my
    development machines, and like any small business, I have to squeeze
    every last nickel, make everything as efficient as possible, and
    control every single cost. It isn't any fun, but it keeps the business
    from going bankrupt - or my credit card from maxing out!

    I use a single Itanium machine to run HP-UX, Linux, and Windows.
    Running VMS as a VM would be more cost effective and efficient than
    having to constantly boot into and out of VMS.

    -Paul


    > D.J.D.




+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast