Modern web browser on VMS, was: Re: Terminal Driver Line Editing

[Simon Clubley]

However, one of the more popular user interfaces today is a browser. If
VSI is going to devote any efforts into a user interface, one would
think there would be more user benefit in a GUI or browser interface.

Of course, it would be nice to have a reasonably modern graphical
browser which runs on VMS. :-D

You can have that today and I've already told you in the past how to do it.

Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.

You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

This assumes the VMS X11 implementation has the required functionality
to support a modern X11 application. It also assumes you are using a SSH
client on VMS which allows you to send the output from your Linux session
to your VMS workstation.

Simon.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc. A web browser is NOT just for viewing stuff (though
I'm sure that there are people who do nothing else; I remember a cartoon
with a person sitting at a keyboard with just two keys, labeled "music"
and "porn"). Sometimes it is useful to use a web browser running on the
same box where the web pages are running (e.g. when editing them on the
fly)---don't tell me to put the web server on linux as well. (I have
George Washington's original axe. I just had to replace the
handle---and the head.)

[Andreas Eder]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

If you are going the ssh way, you could just use sshfs to mount the
filesystem.

'Andreas

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

You are completely 100% ossified and are utterly unwilling to adapt to any
changes at all or to even explore any possible improvements in how things
are done. Don't you see how limiting this is when looking for solutions ?

Simon.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?
You are completely 100% ossified and are utterly unwilling to adapt to any
changes at all or to even explore any possible improvements in how things
are done. Don't you see how limiting this is when looking for solutions ?
Simon.

Many download sites and tools expect reasoable modern browsers.
I already have that on my laptop and it is used for other tasks also.

Then (since I'm working remotely) the file is first dragged to my
Citrix "remote desktop" at the site and then to the VMS boxes using
a standard FTP tool (FileZilla).

I have had no issues with file attributes. Not once in 10 years.
THe ZIPEXE patch files always extracts just fine.

Jan-Erik.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.

Which now requires another system.

Perhaps some do not want to use Linux?

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

Perhaps ...

It's not something I'd want to use. But I will admit that I have a NAS
device used by my WEENDOZE system(s).

Post by Simon Clubley
You are completely 100% ossified and are utterly unwilling to adapt to any
changes at all or to even explore any possible improvements in how things
are done. Don't you see how limiting this is when looking for solutions ?

Well, it's Phillip ....

Regardless, sometimes "solutions" are more trouble than they are worth.

The reality seems to be that VSI sees VMS as a "server" (whatever that
actually means) OS, and will most likely not devote time and effort to
some things Phillip might desire.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Dave Froble

On 2020-09-11, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.

Which now requires another system.

Using VMS has for a long time required another system. It is a very
long time ago that it was enought with only a VMS system and a VT100.

Post by Dave Froble
Perhaps some do not want to use Linux?

Anyone (not counting Phillip maybe) already has another system to do
everything else that is not VMS based. And Linux is the minority here.
95% probably has a Windows or maybe Apple laptop as their main system.

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Simon Clubley
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file?  Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

Perhaps ...
It's not something I'd want to use.

I'm sure you already are. It would surprice me a lot if you do not
have a Windows/Apple/Linux "Personal Computer" where you do almost
everything, including connecting to yur VMS systems.

Post by Dave Froble
But I will admit that I have a NAS
device used by my WEENDOZE system(s).

You are completely 100% ossified and are utterly unwilling to adapt to any
changes at all or to even explore any possible improvements in how things
are done. Don't you see how limiting this is when looking for solutions ?

Well, it's Phillip ....
Regardless, sometimes "solutions" are more trouble than they are worth.

So Phillip has less troubles now? Trying to do things his way?
That is not the way I remember last years posts here from Phillip.

Post by Dave Froble
The reality seems to be that VSI sees VMS as a "server"...

VSI took over a product that had been an server-OS for decades already.
The customers had woted long before and they said that VMS was not for
the desktop.

Post by Dave Froble
(whatever that
actually means) OS, and will most likely not devote time and effort to some
things Phillip might desire.

Of course not. They are a sane company and listens to their customers.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
VSI took over a product that had been an server-OS for decades already.
The customers had woted long before and they said that VMS was not for
the desktop.

I seriously doubt that it was the customer who decided they didn't want
VMS on the desktop. The blame for that falls soundly at the feet of the
same people who tried to kill all of VMS.

bill

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
VSI took over a product that had been an server-OS for decades already.
The customers had woted long before and they said that VMS was not for
the desktop.

I seriously doubt that it was the customer who decided they didn't want
VMS on the desktop. The blame for that falls soundly at the feet of the
same people who tried to kill all of VMS.

RISC architecture workstations completely killed VAX workstations on
performance and pricing as far back as the very late 1980s/early 1990s.

Unfortunately, VMS was not capable of running on those RISC architectures.

Simon.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
VSI took over a product that had been an server-OS for decades already.
The customers had woted long before and they said that VMS was not for
the desktop.

I seriously doubt that it was the customer who decided they didn't want
VMS on the desktop. The blame for that falls soundly at the feet of the
same people who tried to kill all of VMS.

RISC architecture workstations completely killed VAX workstations on
performance and pricing as far back as the very late 1980s/early 1990s.

That is actually irrelevant to this subject. It made servers faster
as well as desktops and while it killed the VAX architecture it made
the desktop market better. I had RISC based X-terminals that worked
quite well with my VAX (and, later, Alpha).

Post by Simon Clubley
Unfortunately, VMS was not capable of running on those RISC architectures.

Which means nothing as far as VMS on the desktop is concerned.

bill

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Simon Clubley
RISC architecture workstations completely killed VAX workstations on
performance and pricing as far back as the very late 1980s/early 1990s.

I think the main thing that killed VAX workstations was Alpha
workstations. There was a time when people moved to Alpha because it
was the best chip.

Who was really behind the Alphacide and what did they get paid to commit
it?

[John Dallman]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Who was really behind the Alphacide and what did they get paid to
commit it?

Compaq seem to have bought DEC for the services business, rather than the
hardware business. Compaq had done very nicely with commodity Intel
processors, and probably saw no need for an expensive low-volume
proprietary processor development business, when Intel were promising a
64-bit commodity processor.

In summer 2001, it was beginning to become clear to people at the sharp
end that Itanium wasn't nearly as good as it was claimed to be, but the
CEOs of this world were still believing Intel's claims. Compaq was
struggling, and would be taken over a few months later. Stopping Alpha
probably looked like a reasonable idea to top management.

A sad fact of the computer industry: top management regard technical
superiority as a nice thing to have, but it's only a small part of what
makes a product successful.

John

[John Dallman]

Post by Bill Gunshannon
I seriously doubt that it was the customer who decided they didn't
want VMS on the desktop. The blame for that falls soundly at the
feet of the same people who tried to kill all of VMS.

One of the things that killed VMS on the desktop was "No Microsoft
Office". The same thing killed HP-UX, Solaris and AIX on the desktop;
Irix died of SGI mis-management, and OSF/1 of Itanium.

From about 1996 onwards, my employers, who produce engineering software,
found that the corporate purchasing departments wanted Windows software,
as a high priority. A little investigation revealed that the end-user
engineers were perfectly happy with their UNIX or VMS workstations.
However, their managers wanted their engineers to use Microsoft Office,
so they could supply spreadsheets, presentations and documents in formats
that the managers understood.

Supplying every engineer with a PC as well as a workstation would cost
money and take up space and cooling. With PCs becoming CPU-competitive
with workstations with the Pentium Pro/II/III family of processors, the
obvious answer was to buy engineering software that ran on Windows, and
the software suppliers had no real choice in the mater.

In a few years, there were no customers for the VNS or UNIX versions, at
which point there was no sense in continuing to produce them.

Microsoft had no motive to produce Office for other platforms, they
wanted the whole cake, not just a slice.

John

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
VSI took over a product that had been an server-OS for decades already.
The customers had woted long before and they said that VMS was not for
the desktop.

I seriously doubt that it was the customer who decided they didn't want
VMS on the desktop. The blame for that falls soundly at the feet of the
same people who tried to kill all of VMS.

Exactly. And today there are Windows on the desktop and Windows
servers. Same with Linux. There is certainly no valid reason why that
couldn't be the same with VMS, like it used to be.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
VSI took over a product that had been an server-OS for decades already.
The customers had woted long before and they said that VMS was not for
the desktop.

I seriously doubt that it was the customer who decided they didn't want
VMS on the desktop. The blame for that falls soundly at the feet of the
same people who tried to kill all of VMS.

Exactly. And today there are Windows on the desktop and Windows
servers. Same with Linux. There is certainly no valid reason why that
couldn't be the same with VMS, like it used to be.

Windows and Windows server are two different product lines
today (sharing kernel and lots of other code though).

Even Linux also have server distros and desktop
distros (sharing Linux kernel and lots of other
code).

Things have diverged.

Of course we could get VMS Desktop 2025 and
VMS Server 2025 (sharing kernel and lots of
other code) if there was a business case
for it.

But the business case is not there.

Creating VMS Desktop would require:
* graphics drivers
* updated X
* porting GTK
* porting FireFox or Chromium
* porting LibreOffice
etc.etc.

It would cost a fortune.

And most people are only willing to pay relative
small amounts for desktop OS.

The only reason MS is making money on desktop OS
is that they sell hundreds of millions of copies.

It will not happen.

Arne

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Dave Froble
Which now requires another system.

Using VMS has for a long time required another system. It is a very
long time ago that it was enought with only a VMS system and a VT100.

Yes. And that's a better way of looking at it in some respects.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Dave Froble
Perhaps some do not want to use Linux?

Anyone (not counting Phillip maybe) already has another system to do
everything else that is not VMS based. And Linux is the minority here.
95% probably has a Windows or maybe Apple laptop as their main system.

I tried to give Phillip a possible solution that would allow him to continue
using his VMS workstation and precious LK keyboards, but he's not even
interested in exploring that. He doesn't even need a normal PC to run Linux;
he could do it just fine using a small cheap embedded board.

As mentioned before, this approach assumes the VMS X11 software and TCP/IP
stack are close enough to the Linux versions that they can still be used to
display the output from modern X11 Linux software. I don't know just how
out of date the VMS versions are so that would have to be tested to see
if this was still a viable approach.

Simon.

[Stephen Hoffman]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Dave Froble
Which now requires another system.

Using VMS has for a long time required another system. It is a very
long time ago that it was enought with only a VMS system and a VT100.

Yes. And that's a better way of looking at it in some respects.

Ayup. Most of the OpenVMS world replaced DEC VT terminals with terminal
emulation, running on a variety of platforms.

DECwindows let some OpenVMS desktop usage linger on, largely for
software developers and for those with apps with X displays.

Desktop-related apps running on OpenVMS, not so much. But some
folks—including Phillip—don't want or don't need desktop-related apps.

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Dave Froble
Perhaps some do not want to use Linux?

Anyone (not counting Phillip maybe) already has another system to do
everything else that is not VMS based. And Linux is the minority here.
95% probably has a Windows or maybe Apple laptop as their main system.

Ayup. The OpenVMS servers sit in racks or on shelves with other
servers, and are accessed and managed and software installed and
updated remotely.

OpenVMS runs those server apps that need OpenVMS. Not much else runs on
the OpenVMS boxes.

For those folks here not steeped in command-line app development on
OpenVMS, the VSI IDE allows development in C and Fortran, among other
programming languages.
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=VMSSoftwareInc.vms-ide

Post by Simon Clubley
I tried to give Phillip a possible solution that would allow him to
continue using his VMS workstation and precious LK keyboards, but he's
not even interested in exploring that. He doesn't even need a normal PC
to run Linux; he could do it just fine using a small cheap embedded
board.

FWIW, here's an interesting series of articles on some of the smaller
hardware that's available, and variously available used, for use as
small servers and for home servers.

https://www.servethehome.com/introducing-project-tinyminimicro-home-lab-revolution/


This usage as differentiated from the folks running home servers using
Raspberry Pi Arm boards, or ROCKPro64 Arm boards, or similar.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Using VMS has for a long time required another system.

Why?

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
It is a very
long time ago that it was enought with only a VMS system and a VT100.

Note that a graphics monitors with CDE is also possible. It's not
either VT100 or connect from a Windows terminal emulator.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
Anyone (not counting Phillip maybe) already has another system to do
everything else that is not VMS based. And Linux is the minority here.
95% probably has a Windows or maybe Apple laptop as their main system.

I do have an iPad, but bought mainly for reading PDF files while
travelling and as a mobile internet connection. There is no easy way to
get files to and from VMS. But even if there were, it's still not the
same.

There are some people who have lost years of their lives because they
didn't take off an hour to learn the EDT keypad. Same idea.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Simon Clubley
For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

Which means another system to run it on.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
I'm sure you already are. It would surprice me a lot if you do not
have a Windows/Apple/Linux "Personal Computer" where you do almost
everything, including connecting to yur VMS systems.

I do have an iPad, but, as noted above, that is for mobile internet and
reading on the train. I don't have a personal computer otherwise. I
certainly don't usually connect to my VMS systems from anywhere else.
Why? I have DECterms running on CDE if I need multiple windows.
Otherwise a terminal. All with proper keyboards. How many people have
lost how many years of their lives because of extra keystrokes because
they are using VMS without a proper keyboard and/or don't make use of
all the ergonomic features of VMS?

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

So boot up whatever hosts that file system whenever I need to do
something on VMS?

Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now? Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

So boot up whatever hosts that file system whenever I need to do
something on VMS?

You are spinning things in a way that is not even funny anymore.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now? Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

Perhaps try to drag yourself 25-30 years forward? That will help a lot.

It was not DEC that abandoned that motto. It just bacome uninteresting
by the way the overall IT world developed. When the customers lost
interest, why would DEC hold on to it? VMS lost the war over desktops
a long time ago.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
It was not DEC that abandoned that motto. It just bacome uninteresting
by the way the overall IT world developed. When the customers lost
interest, why would DEC hold on to it? VMS lost the war over desktops
a long time ago.

The customer didn't lose interest in datacenter-to-desktop. As a
matter of fact, the systems that holds the largest piece of the
IT world today specifically does datacenter-to-desktop. And I
think customers are perfectly happy with that.

bill

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
It was not DEC that abandoned that motto. It just bacome uninteresting
by the way the overall IT world developed. When the customers lost
interest, why would DEC hold on to it? VMS lost the war over desktops
a long time ago.

The customer didn't lose interest in datacenter-to-desktop. As a
matter of fact, the systems that holds the largest piece of the
IT world today specifically does datacenter-to-desktop. And I
think customers are perfectly happy with that.

The difference is those operating systems today can run on those cheap
desktop systems and workstations as well as the server-grade hardware.

VMS couldn't do that, so yes the customer was indeed forced over to the
cheaper and more powerful RISC workstations and then the later PC desktops,
none of which ran VMS.

Simon.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
It was not DEC that abandoned that motto. It just bacome uninteresting
by the way the overall IT world developed. When the customers lost
interest, why would DEC hold on to it? VMS lost the war over desktops
a long time ago.

The customer didn't lose interest in datacenter-to-desktop. As a
matter of fact, the systems that holds the largest piece of the
IT world today specifically does datacenter-to-desktop. And I
think customers are perfectly happy with that.

The difference is those operating systems today can run on those cheap
desktop systems and workstations as well as the server-grade hardware.
VMS couldn't do that, so yes the customer was indeed forced over to the
cheaper and more powerful RISC workstations and then the later PC desktops,
none of which ran VMS.

None of which has anything to do with VMS on the desktop. Thin
Clients don't run Windows. Actually, most run Linux. But they
support a desktop protocol, usually X-11 and RDP. VMS could
have followed the same path and we would still have VMS on the
desktop today. But, alas, we don't.

bill

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

So boot up whatever hosts that file system whenever I need to do
something on VMS?

You are spinning things in a way that is not even funny anymore.

Agreed.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now? Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

Perhaps try to drag yourself 25-30 years forward? That will help a lot.

Even dragging himself forward by 15 years would help. Your attitudes are
really that far out of date Phillip.

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
It was not DEC that abandoned that motto. It just bacome uninteresting
by the way the overall IT world developed. When the customers lost
interest, why would DEC hold on to it? VMS lost the war over desktops
a long time ago.

RISC workstations killed VAX workstations and then the PC desktop killed
whatever interest was left in VMS workstations, especially since you could
run VMS X11 applications on those new workstations and PC desktops (using
an X11 layer in the latter case) if you really, really needed to.

Simon.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm
You are spinning things in a way that is not even funny anymore.

Oh, I'm not so sure of that. I'm still laughing.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now? Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.

The server market and the desktop market are very different.

And most other OS have also recognized the split.

Mainframe was never on desktop.

For traditional Unix then AIX and what is remaining of
Solaris and HP-UX are focusing on server.

macOS is desktop only today after they ditched
server.

Windows still has both server and desktop and are successful in both
areas, but they are now different versions with different feature sets.

Linux has huge success on servers, but has never really made
it on desktop even though a few people still hope.

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now?  Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.
The server market and the desktop market are very different.
And most other OS have also recognized the split.

Microsoft?

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Mainframe was never on desktop.
For traditional Unix then AIX and what is remaining of
Solaris and HP-UX are focusing on server.
macOS is desktop only today after they ditched
server.
Windows still has both server and desktop and are successful in both
areas, but they are now different versions with different feature sets.

Not really. Since the days of NT the difference between desktop and
server has been little more than Registry Tweaks. Why else do you
think that WEindows Desktop Applications run just as well on Server
versions of the OS?

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Linux has huge success on servers, but has never really made
it on desktop even though a few people still hope.

I think you are mistaken here, too. I use Linux for both server and
desktop and I know lots of others that do as well.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now?  Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.
The server market and the desktop market are very different.
And most other OS have also recognized the split.
Windows still has both server and desktop and are successful in both
areas, but they are now different versions with different feature sets.

Not really. Since the days of NT the difference between desktop and
server has been little more than Registry Tweaks.

That was how it was for NT 4 and 2000.

It is a bit different these days.

Server went 2003 - 2008 - 2012 - 2016 - 2019. Desktop went XP - Vista -
7 - 8 - 10.

Server supports x64-64 (64 bit) and back in time also Itanium.
Desktop supports x86 (32 bit), x86-64 (64 bit) and ARM.

Server gives you the choice between Core edition (no GUI) and edition
with GUI [and I believe MS recommends Core edition today]. Desktop
always comes with GUI.

Server supports Hyper-V as host and AD. Desktop does not.

Server are very different from desktop security wise.

Server supports more memory and more CPU's than desktop.

You cannot take a Windows 10, edit registry and voila you got a
Windows Server 2019.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
  Why else do you
think that WEindows Desktop Applications run just as well on Server
versions of the OS?

They share kernel and a bunch of other things, so applications
may indeed run (depending on what apps and what server).

But that is not sufficient to be the same OS. You can
run Windows apps on Linux with Wine and Linux apps on
Windows with WSL 1 (WSL 2 does not really count as it is a VM).

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Linux has huge success on servers, but has never really made
it on desktop even though a few people still hope.

I think you are mistaken here, too.  I use Linux for both server and
desktop and I know lots of others that do as well.

Yes.

But in the IT industry at large Linux desktop is a rare bird.

Arne

[Chris]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now? Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.
The server market and the desktop market are very different.
And most other OS have also recognized the split.
Windows still has both server and desktop and are successful in both
areas, but they are now different versions with different feature sets.

Not really. Since the days of NT the difference between desktop and
server has been little more than Registry Tweaks.

That was how it was for NT 4 and 2000.
It is a bit different these days.
Server went 2003 - 2008 - 2012 - 2016 - 2019. Desktop went XP - Vista -
7 - 8 - 10.
Server supports x64-64 (64 bit) and back in time also Itanium.
Desktop supports x86 (32 bit), x86-64 (64 bit) and ARM.
Server gives you the choice between Core edition (no GUI) and edition
with GUI [and I believe MS recommends Core edition today]. Desktop
always comes with GUI.
Server supports Hyper-V as host and AD. Desktop does not.
Server are very different from desktop security wise.
Server supports more memory and more CPU's than desktop.

I've used server versions of windows for desktop for some years. The
system management tools are far better and with server 2008, roughly
similar to win 7, most services are disabled by default, even a
sound card. You have to manually enable them. Makes the whole os
more secure out of the box. and surprisingly, very robust. Even get
an nfs client and server at no added cost, very useful for a unix
shop.

I don't do os wars here, but windows can be an effective tool to
run a few essential legacy apps...

Chris

Post by Arne Vajhøj
You cannot take a Windows 10, edit registry and voila you got a
Windows Server 2019.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
Why else do you
think that WEindows Desktop Applications run just as well on Server
versions of the OS?

They share kernel and a bunch of other things, so applications
may indeed run (depending on what apps and what server).
But that is not sufficient to be the same OS. You can
run Windows apps on Linux with Wine and Linux apps on
Windows with WSL 1 (WSL 2 does not really count as it is a VM).

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Linux has huge success on servers, but has never really made
it on desktop even though a few people still hope.

I think you are mistaken here, too. I use Linux for both server and
desktop and I know lots of others that do as well.

Yes.
But in the IT industry at large Linux desktop is a rare bird.
Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Chris

Post by Arne Vajhøj
It is a bit different these days.
Server went 2003 - 2008 - 2012 - 2016 - 2019. Desktop went XP - Vista -
7 - 8 - 10.
Server supports x64-64 (64 bit) and back in time also Itanium.
Desktop supports x86 (32 bit), x86-64 (64 bit) and ARM.
Server gives you the choice between Core edition (no GUI) and edition
with GUI [and I believe MS recommends Core edition today]. Desktop
always comes with GUI.
Server supports Hyper-V as host and AD. Desktop does not.
Server are very different from desktop security wise.
Server supports more memory and more CPU's than desktop.

I've used server versions of windows for desktop for some years. The
system management tools are far better and with server 2008, roughly
similar to win 7, most services are disabled by default, even a
sound card. You have to manually enable them. Makes the whole os
more secure out of the box. and surprisingly, very robust. Even get
an nfs client and server at no added cost, very useful for a unix
shop.

I understand that.

And I am running Linux then I prefer a Centos server over an Ubuntu
desktop distro.

But there are not 1 billion like us.

:-)

Arne

[Chris]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Chris

Post by Arne Vajhøj
It is a bit different these days.
Server went 2003 - 2008 - 2012 - 2016 - 2019. Desktop went XP - Vista -
7 - 8 - 10.
Server supports x64-64 (64 bit) and back in time also Itanium.
Desktop supports x86 (32 bit), x86-64 (64 bit) and ARM.
Server gives you the choice between Core edition (no GUI) and edition
with GUI [and I believe MS recommends Core edition today]. Desktop
always comes with GUI.
Server supports Hyper-V as host and AD. Desktop does not.
Server are very different from desktop security wise.
Server supports more memory and more CPU's than desktop.

I've used server versions of windows for desktop for some years. The
system management tools are far better and with server 2008, roughly
similar to win 7, most services are disabled by default, even a
sound card. You have to manually enable them. Makes the whole os
more secure out of the box. and surprisingly, very robust. Even get
an nfs client and server at no added cost, very useful for a unix
shop.

I understand that.
And I am running Linux then I prefer a Centos server over an Ubuntu
desktop distro.
But there are not 1 billion like us.
:-)
Arne

No, but their are millions who just want a computer to stream Netflix,
or browse Ebay or Amazon. Computing is no longer the esoteric dark art
of the past, but a mainstream commodity. That sort of volume drives the
market direction, development and price, with techies like us doing the
best we can with the leftovers. If it fails, they send it back or just
bin it and buy another.

Server and workstations have a very different requirement and it's quite
frankly laughable to think that vms could ever again be a desktop
solution without years of catchup. Great server os, let it excel there
if it can...

Chris

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
I think you are mistaken here, too.  I use Linux for both server and
desktop and I know lots of others that do as well.

So do I (at least for some uses) but I also recognise I am not the
normal case there.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Yes.
But in the IT industry at large Linux desktop is a rare bird.

Actually, Linux did something more impressive. It bypassed the desktop
and ended up being the dominant operating system on mobile phones and
tablets instead.

I doubt you will ever see VMS running native on a tablet or mobile phone. :-)

Simon.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Arne Vajhøj
But in the IT industry at large Linux desktop is a rare bird.

Actually, Linux did something more impressive. It bypassed the desktop
and ended up being the dominant operating system on mobile phones and
tablets instead.

True. They got is it 85% of that 3 billion unit market?

But even though an Android phone runs the Linux kernel
and some standard Linux user land stuff, then it is
very different from a traditional Linux distro.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
I think you are mistaken here, too. I use Linux for both server and
desktop and I know lots of others that do as well.

So do I (at least for some uses) but I also recognise I am not the
normal case there.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Yes.
But in the IT industry at large Linux desktop is a rare bird.

Actually, Linux did something more impressive. It bypassed the desktop
and ended up being the dominant operating system on mobile phones and
tablets instead.
I doubt you will ever see VMS running native on a tablet or mobile phone. :-)
Simon.

Well, I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it will most likely be
possible. I'm just not sure why anyone would want to do so.

I've got a tablet. Not a small one. Makes a decent Kindle reader. I
doubt VMS would improve on the existing Kindle apps. Why bother.

I also use it to run Avair, moving map software. Not quite enough room
for a desktop, or server, in my aircraft.

But I don't use it for anything else. Way too small.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Simon Clubley
Actually, Linux did something more impressive. It bypassed the desktop
and ended up being the dominant operating system on mobile phones and
tablets instead.
I doubt you will ever see VMS running native on a tablet or mobile phone. :-)

Well, I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it will most likely be
possible. I'm just not sure why anyone would want to do so.

The basic problem (apart from the 4-mode KESU problem) is that VMS isn't
structured to run in a flash/ROM-based embedded environment.

Post by Dave Froble
I've got a tablet. Not a small one. Makes a decent Kindle reader. I
doubt VMS would improve on the existing Kindle apps. Why bother.
I also use it to run Avair, moving map software. Not quite enough room
for a desktop, or server, in my aircraft.

I had a look for this but didn't find anything. I did find something
called Avare however. Is that what you meant ?

For me, my primary walking guides are the official Ordnance Survey 1:25000
paper maps (and a compass).

My fallback is an eTrex 20x with open source maps loaded and my final level
of backup is OsmAnd running on an Android phone with the same open source maps.

I mention that because I would have thought that air navigation would
have been more regulated, so I was surprised to see this Avare application.

Post by Dave Froble
But I don't use it for anything else. Way too small.

What about playing music ? :-)

Simon.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble
I also use it to run Avair, moving map software. Not quite enough room
for a desktop, or server, in my aircraft.

I had a look for this but didn't find anything. I did find something
called Avare however. Is that what you meant ?

Yeah, sorry, spelling issue. Or maybe "old geezer" issue.

Post by Simon Clubley
For me, my primary walking guides are the official Ordnance Survey 1:25000
paper maps (and a compass).
My fallback is an eTrex 20x with open source maps loaded and my final level
of backup is OsmAnd running on an Android phone with the same open source maps.
I mention that because I would have thought that air navigation would
have been more regulated, so I was surprised to see this Avare application.

It will run on a phone also. I have it on my android phone. But as
mentioned below, WAY TOO SMALL!

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble
But I don't use it for anything else. Way too small.

What about playing music ? :-)
Simon.

[Stephen Hoffman]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Simon Clubley
Actually, Linux did something more impressive. It bypassed the desktop
and ended up being the dominant operating system on mobile phones and
tablets instead.
I doubt you will ever see VMS running native on a tablet or mobile phone. :-)

Ayup. Not prior to the hypothetical OpenVMS Arm or RISC-V ports,
certainly. If then.

It'd also require likely overhauling the OpenVMS pricing model, far
past the old Files-and-Application-Server licensing scheme.

And no, I don't expect to see OpenVMS running with touch interfaces or
the rest of what's expected and necessarily involved here.

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble
Well, I'm not saying it's going to happen. But it will most likely be
possible. I'm just not sure why anyone would want to do so.

The basic problem (apart from the 4-mode KESU problem) is that VMS
isn't structured to run in a flash/ROM-based embedded environment.

That was arguably the job of VAXELN. And ELN would need substantial
work to haul its features and capabilities forward 30-some years. And
VSI would have to rebuild VSI ELN from the current OpenVMS kernel, as
they didn't acquire ELN.

There are various articles around on power management, and OpenVMS
supports a fraction of what's involved and expected there. Here's a
little light reading:

https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/EnergyGuide-iOS/FundamentalConcepts.html

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/pcyc-winet.pdf


Last I checked, OpenVMS I64 could power down idle cores on some Itanium
servers, but I don't recall much in the way of scheduler event
consolidation—coalescing ASTs and interrupts, in OpenVMS terms—and
related power-management activities, not the least of which was a
low-powered sleep mode, and the ability to power down unused
components. This isn't just clients, either. Power management is
interesting on servers, too.

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble
I've got a tablet. Not a small one. Makes a decent Kindle reader. I
doubt VMS would improve on the existing Kindle apps. Why bother.
...

Touch would be another area OpenVMS knows nothing about and would
require extensive system and extensive app-related work.

Post by Simon Clubley
...
For me, my primary walking guides are the official Ordnance Survey
1:25000 paper maps (and a compass).
My fallback is an eTrex 20x with open source maps loaded and my final
level of backup is OsmAnd running on an Android phone with the same
open source maps.

A PLB or satellite radio would be typical in some areas. Garmin InReach
or ilk. Maps, positioning, and satellite message capabilities. That's a
step up from the Garmin eTrex, but similar in concept.

Why PLB and satellite? Cellular coverage around here is spotty at best
even on some state highways, and spottier still on the trails. Your
cellular carrier coverage might be (is?) better.

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Dave Froble
But I don't use it for anything else. Way too small.

What about playing music ? :-)

For OpenVMS, MMOV has some of that covered on OpenVMS, though that'd
need substantial updates, and probably also need DRM support added. And
compatibility with a music store, and a means to load music. One of the
areas of features expected of client devices, now. USB audio was an
area that OpenVMS had trouble, too; isochronous transfer support was
unavailable.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
The basic problem (apart from the 4-mode KESU problem) is that VMS
isn't structured to run in a flash/ROM-based embedded environment.

That was arguably the job of VAXELN. And ELN would need substantial
work to haul its features and capabilities forward 30-some years. And
VSI would have to rebuild VSI ELN from the current OpenVMS kernel, as
they didn't acquire ELN.

I think those days are well and truly gone. There are just too many
established and mainstream RTOS players in that market these days.

Post by Stephen Hoffman
Touch would be another area OpenVMS knows nothing about and would
require extensive system and extensive app-related work.

Yes. Big-time yes.

Post by Stephen Hoffman
A PLB or satellite radio would be typical in some areas. Garmin InReach
or ilk. Maps, positioning, and satellite message capabilities. That's a
step up from the Garmin eTrex, but similar in concept.
Why PLB and satellite? Cellular coverage around here is spotty at best
even on some state highways, and spottier still on the trails. Your
cellular carrier coverage might be (is?) better.

[Briefly because it's totally OT for VMS:]

I was very seriously thinking of adding a PLB or one of the subscription
devices to my collection this year before all the lockdowns and travel
restrictions started as I tend to end up in a lot of valleys even when
in an area with (some) hill-top coverage. :-)

I was undecided between a PLB or a subscription device, but I was tending
towards a PLB because with a higher-power signal and on 406 MHz it would
have a higher chance of punching through thick overhead tree cover and
because it didn't have any ongoing subscription costs.

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
What about playing music ? :-)

For OpenVMS, MMOV has some of that covered on OpenVMS, though that'd
need substantial updates, and probably also need DRM support added. And
compatibility with a music store, and a means to load music. One of the
areas of features expected of client devices, now. USB audio was an
area that OpenVMS had trouble, too; isochronous transfer support was
unavailable.

I was unaware of the lack of USB isochronous transfer support on VMS.

What was the reason for that ?

Was there some technical issue or was it simply that the effort involved
in developing that support for VMS could not be justified ?

BTW, I wonder if you will be able to boot and run a normal VMS installation
from a USB device on x86-64 ?

Simon.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
The basic problem (apart from the 4-mode KESU problem) is that VMS
isn't structured to run in a flash/ROM-based embedded environment.

That was arguably the job of VAXELN. And ELN would need substantial
work to haul its features and capabilities forward 30-some years. And
VSI would have to rebuild VSI ELN from the current OpenVMS kernel, as
they didn't acquire ELN.

I think those days are well and truly gone. There are just too many
established and mainstream RTOS players in that market these days.

In many cases today, you simple put in a PLC. Much powerfull then
any VAXELN system ever was. But, a friend have hardware support
contract with a site with 10 VAXELN systems in production use.

[Stephen Hoffman]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
The basic problem (apart from the 4-mode KESU problem) is that VMS
isn't structured to run in a flash/ROM-based embedded environment.

That was arguably the job of VAXELN. And ELN would need substantial
work to haul its features and capabilities forward 30-some years. And
VSI would have to rebuild VSI ELN from the current OpenVMS kernel, as
they didn't acquire ELN.

I think those days are well and truly gone. There are just too many
established and mainstream RTOS players in that market these days.

The market VSI is aiming at now is tough enough, without picking a few
other targets with divergent requirements, yes.

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Stephen Hoffman
...
For OpenVMS, MMOV has some of that covered on OpenVMS, though that'd
need substantial updates, and probably also need DRM support added. And
compatibility with a music store, and a means to load music. One of the
areas of features expected of client devices, now. USB audio was an
area that OpenVMS had trouble, too; isochronous transfer support was
unavailable.

I was unaware of the lack of USB isochronous transfer support on VMS.
What was the reason for that ?

There wasn't and probably still isn't a substantial call for support of
isochronous USB transfers within OpenVMS.

OpenVMS USB device support was (and still is) limited.

Audio wasn't and still isn't on that list.

Audio and video support did and likely still does tend to be viewed as
front-end work too, and not as server-focused work.

Post by Simon Clubley
Was there some technical issue or was it simply that the effort
involved in developing that support for VMS could not be justified ?

No technical issues I'm aware of. Design, programming, testing,
documentation, etc.

For USB expectations, we're headed for USB4 now, with operating system
support for USB 3.1 xHCI expected by most computer-using folks.

OpenVMS USB was supporting the older and slower OHCI and EHCI
interfaces. So there's USB work awaiting here.

Post by Simon Clubley
BTW, I wonder if you will be able to boot and run a normal VMS
installation from a USB device on x86-64 ?

I'd expect x86-64 USB boot will work. It's how I'd prefer to do OpenVMS
distributions, for those that want or need physical media, too. Not
having to stuff a distro onto ~4.7 GB chunks is a win.

USB flash drive boot was a little rocky with the earliest of the USB
hardware and firmware, but that was also ~15 years ago. I'd expect
that'll be sorted as the V9.2 x86-64 production release gets closer.

One of the issues lurking is the EFI sector size "fun", as USB flash
and optical media obviously use differing sector sizes, and which means
that disk images implicitly embed the target media format. SET
BOOTBLOCK can fix that, but that's yet another wrinkle. We're not yet
forced into dealing with modern AFD hard disks and SSD sector sizes,
but that's additional work that's undoubtedly pending.

[Dennis Boone]

Post by Simon Clubley
I mention that because I would have thought that air navigation would
have been more regulated, so I was surprised to see this Avare
application.

In the US, at least, apps like Avare are not accepted for the required
pre-flight briefings and such, or as substitutes for required aircraft
equipment. Pretty sure I remember Avare making me click through
warnings to that effect. But apparently the rules for what you actually
use in flight are less restrictive.

De

[Dave Froble]

Post by Dennis Boone

Post by Simon Clubley
I mention that because I would have thought that air navigation would
have been more regulated, so I was surprised to see this Avare application.

In the US, at least, apps like Avare are not accepted for the required
pre-flight briefings and such, or as substitutes for required aircraft
equipment. Pretty sure I remember Avare making me click through
warnings to that effect. But apparently the rules for what you actually
use in flight are less restrictive.
De

Various aircraft and types of flight do have requirements. As long as
aircraft and pilot meet the requirements, any additional capabilities
are not regulated.

The tablet cannot be used for example for IFR navigation, but, it can
still tell you where you are. GPS is a real game changer in aviation.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Dennis Boone

Post by Simon Clubley
I mention that because I would have thought that air navigation would
have been more regulated, so I was surprised to see this Avare application.

In the US, at least, apps like Avare are not accepted for the required
pre-flight briefings and such, or as substitutes for required aircraft
equipment. Pretty sure I remember Avare making me click through
warnings to that effect. But apparently the rules for what you actually
use in flight are less restrictive.

Interesting, thanks. I wasn't aware of that.

Simon.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Dennis Boone

Post by Simon Clubley
I mention that because I would have thought that air navigation would
have been more regulated, so I was surprised to see this Avare application.

In the US, at least, apps like Avare are not accepted for the required
pre-flight briefings and such, or as substitutes for required aircraft
equipment. Pretty sure I remember Avare making me click through
warnings to that effect. But apparently the rules for what you actually
use in flight are less restrictive.

GPS is not allowed as a primary navigation aid, it is only allowed as a
backup.

Electronic Flight Bags with all the charts and approach plates on a computer
are allowed, although having paper copies as a backup is strongly recommended.

In reality a lot of people are flying with GPS and not checking it against
anything else, and this is bad but not surprising.
--scott

[Dave Froble]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Dennis Boone

Post by Simon Clubley
I mention that because I would have thought that air navigation would
have been more regulated, so I was surprised to see this Avare application.

In the US, at least, apps like Avare are not accepted for the required
pre-flight briefings and such, or as substitutes for required aircraft
equipment. Pretty sure I remember Avare making me click through
warnings to that effect. But apparently the rules for what you actually
use in flight are less restrictive.

GPS is not allowed as a primary navigation aid, it is only allowed as a
backup.
Electronic Flight Bags with all the charts and approach plates on a computer
are allowed, although having paper copies as a backup is strongly recommended.
In reality a lot of people are flying with GPS and not checking it against
anything else, and this is bad but not surprising.
--scott

Uh, you check the GPS against the ground you're flying over ...

Is it any worse than doing dead reckoning with a sectional and a compass?

The potential bad thing about GPS and such is what if they stop working?
Best to have backups, and even that paper sectional, and a working
compass when and if that happens.

Most important, situational awareness.

I know a guy, private pilot, who got lost one day. Called for help,
they had him transmit a transponder code, then informed him he was right
over the airport. Guess he could not see it through the floor of the
aircraft. After that, he stopped flying.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Dave Froble
Uh, you check the GPS against the ground you're flying over ...

This works great but only under VFR conditions.

Post by Dave Froble
Is it any worse than doing dead reckoning with a sectional and a compass?

You're supposed to do dead reckoning first, plot your line and then use the
GPS to make sure you're where you think you are. You're not supposed to use
the GPS and then plot your course after it goes out.

Post by Dave Froble
The potential bad thing about GPS and such is what if they stop working?
Best to have backups, and even that paper sectional, and a working
compass when and if that happens.

Indeed, although having a functioning VOR and having it set up and using it
is not a bad plan either especially under IFR conditions.

It is a little wacky that they don't want you using GPS for primary navigation
but then they want you to squit your GPS position. Go figure. On the other
hand I still see planes coming in from the UK whose ADS-B trace would have
you think they are landing a mile out to sea from JFK because they are
squitting position from the INS but claiming it's GPS...
--scott

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now?  Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.
The server market and the desktop market are very different.
And most other OS have also recognized the split.
Windows still has both server and desktop and are successful in both
areas, but they are now different versions with different feature sets.

Not really. Since the days of NT the difference between desktop and
server has been little more than Registry Tweaks.

That was how it was for NT 4 and 2000.
It is a bit different these days.
Server went 2003 - 2008 - 2012 - 2016 - 2019. Desktop went XP - Vista -
7 - 8 - 10.

Those are just marketing names and have little if anything to do with
the internals of the OS.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server supports x64-64 (64 bit) and back in time also Itanium.
Desktop supports x86 (32 bit), x86-64 (64 bit) and ARM.

Not sure they still support 32 bit, haven't looked lately as I no longer
have a need for or interest in Windows. But, once again, that really
only has to do with how the builds are done. In its day, VMS was the
same. Ran on on three architectures but the desktop/server difference
was pretty much non-existant.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server gives you the choice between Core edition (no GUI) and edition
with GUI [and I believe MS recommends Core edition today]. Desktop
always comes with GUI.

That's features on top of the OS. Says nothing about the underlying
OS.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server supports Hyper-V as host and AD. Desktop does not.

Applications. Not supported because there is no expected ROI
from providing them.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server are very different from desktop security wise.

Maybe in default setup, but not when you take your security seriously.
Real reason for the difference is that if you locked down the desktop
like you lock down a server you would have very unhappy users.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server supports more memory and more CPU's than desktop.

Don't know about this, could be true. But I expect it has more
to do with supported hardware than the core OS.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
You cannot take a Windows 10, edit registry and voila you got a
Windows Server 2019.

Well, not sure how the comparison would go between desktop and server
versions, but from my experience there really is nothing you can do on
a desktop that you can't do on a server and vice versa.

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon
                                                 Why else do you
think that WEindows Desktop Applications run just as well on Server
versions of the OS?

They share kernel and a bunch of other things, so applications
may indeed run (depending on what apps and what server).

Every application I have ever tried. Why do you think that running
Thin Clients (or whatever they are calling them today) from Windows
Servers provides the exact same desktops as the desktops versions
of the OS?

Post by Arne Vajhøj
But that is not sufficient to be the same OS. You can
run Windows apps on Linux with Wine and Linux apps on
Windows with WSL 1 (WSL 2 does not really count as it is a VM).

You can run limited applications under Wine. I seriously doubt you
could have a compete remote desktop from a wine box. It is an
abstraction layer and nothing more.

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Linux has huge success on servers, but has never really made
it on desktop even though a few people still hope.

I think you are mistaken here, too.  I use Linux for both server and
desktop and I know lots of others that do as well.

Yes.
But in the IT industry at large Linux desktop is a rare bird.

I don't have enough data to argue this but I do know there are a lot
of businesses (and government organizations) that have made the move
away from Windows.

And, all of this is irrelevant to VMS. The desktop on VMS was killed
from the top. Had it been maintained and improved so that it could have
supported modern applications I think it would still be alive today
and happily used by customers. Especially using Thin Clients on the
desktop, and not necessarily a VAXStation.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now?  Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.
The server market and the desktop market are very different.
And most other OS have also recognized the split.
Windows still has both server and desktop and are successful in both
areas, but they are now different versions with different feature sets.

Not really. Since the days of NT the difference between desktop and
server has been little more than Registry Tweaks.

That was how it was for NT 4 and 2000.
It is a bit different these days.
Server went 2003 - 2008 - 2012 - 2016 - 2019. Desktop went XP - Vista
- 7 - 8 - 10.

Those are just marketing names and have little if anything to do with
the internals of the OS.

It has very little to do with the kernel of the OS'es.

But it is totally separate versions with different feature sets.
Different software.

It is not just marketing and licensing.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server supports x64-64 (64 bit) and back in time also Itanium.
Desktop supports x86 (32 bit), x86-64 (64 bit) and ARM.

Not sure they still support 32 bit, haven't looked lately as I no longer
have a need for or interest in Windows.

It does.

Post by Bill Gunshannon
  But, once again, that really
only has to do with how the builds are done.  In its day, VMS was the
same.  Ran on on three architectures but the desktop/server difference
was pretty much non-existant.

I don't think any VMS version ran on all 3 - VAX stopped at 7.3 and
Itanium started at 8.0.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server gives you the choice between Core edition (no GUI) and edition
with GUI [and I believe MS recommends Core edition today]. Desktop
always comes with GUI.

That's features on top of the OS.  Says nothing about the underlying
OS.

Not on Windows - there it is a feature of the OS.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server supports Hyper-V as host and AD. Desktop does not.

Applications.  Not supported because there is no expected ROI
from providing them.

People pay for and get a different product.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server are very different from desktop security wise.

Maybe in default setup, but not when you take your security seriously.
Real reason for the difference is that if you locked down the desktop
like you lock down a server you would have very unhappy users.

It is more than just different default settings.

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server supports more memory and more CPU's than desktop.

Don't know about this, could be true.  But I expect it has more
to do with supported hardware than the core OS.

It is what the OS are limited to.

Windows 7 supports 192 GB and 2 sockets.
Windows 10 supports 6 TB and 4 sockets.
Windows Server 2012 supports 4TB and 64 sockets.
Windows Server 2019 supports 24TB and 64 scoekst.

(pro/enterprise and standard/datacenter edition)

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Arne Vajhøj
You cannot take a Windows 10, edit registry and voila you got a
Windows Server 2019.

Well, not sure how the comparison would go between desktop and server
versions, but from my experience there really is nothing you can do on
a desktop that you can't do on a server and vice versa.

Somehow I suspect that your Windows Server experience is not with
Core edition.

:-)

Arne

[Craig A. Berry]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Server supports Hyper-V as host and AD. Desktop does not.

Windows 10 Pro and Enterprise support Hyper-V. I'm not sure what you
need to run AD server, but you can join any Windows machine to a domain
except Windows 10 Home.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.

That meant fewer people with VMS experience, even as just an end user,
thus harder to hire people with VMS experience.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
The server market and the desktop market are very different.

Not for Windows. Not for Linux. Not really.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Arne Vajhøj
There are many reasons why VMS popularity has decreased. I very much
doubt that the demise of VAXStation/AlphaStation/PWS is a major
contributing factor.

That meant fewer people with VMS experience, even as just an end user,
thus harder to hire people with VMS experience.

Those thingies never sold enough to produce a large
pool of VMS skills.

Back when people was exposed to VMS in large numbers it was
VT220 and VT320.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever, log
in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

So boot up whatever hosts that file system whenever I need to do
something on VMS?
Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now? Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

Like it or not Phillip, it is a different world today.

Back in the day, HW was expensive, and that revenue provided for
software and other things. Not so today. Software development is
expensive, if you're paying for it, and sometimes some software can be
free. Not free to develop, free to attract users.

There is much more software available today than DEC could ever dream of
providing. Look at browsers. Most are free to the users. But not so
free to develop, unless time and effort are provided free. Nor are most
of them a simple application. Nor are most of them a static product.

If you're dreaming that VSI will ever provide you with a browser, wake
up, accept reality. It's not going to happen. Explain how they would
ever recoup the development effort and expense. Not going to happen.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Post by Dave Froble
If you're dreaming that VSI will ever provide you with a browser, wake
up, accept reality.  It's not going to happen.  Explain how they would
ever recoup the development effort and expense.  Not going to happen.

If they had just kept it going like everyone else did the development
effort and expense would have been just a small line item like it is
for their competitors. They opted to let it languish and now they VMS
community pays the price.

bill

[Dave Froble]

Post by Bill Gunshannon

Post by Dave Froble
If you're dreaming that VSI will ever provide you with a browser, wake
up, accept reality. It's not going to happen. Explain how they would
ever recoup the development effort and expense. Not going to happen.

If they had just kept it going like everyone else did the development
effort and expense would have been just a small line item like it is
for their competitors. They opted to let it languish and now they VMS
community pays the price.

But, did everyone else do the "development effort and expense"? Perhaps
a bit, but Mozilla for example has not, as far as I know, gotten much
help if any form OS vendors. To say that DEC should have done the
development is placing much more burden on them than anyone else.

Yes, DEC can perhaps be blamed for third parties not including VMS as a
supported environment, because DEC did some really stupid things, such
as advocating Unix over VMS and such. And trying to get in bed with
Microsoft, and being turned over and butt fucked just like everyone else
that tried to work with Microsoft.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Dave Froble

Why was VMS popular 25--30 years ago, and not now?  Because DEC and
later owners abandoned the "desktop to data center" motto.

Like it or not Phillip, it is a different world today.
Back in the day, HW was expensive, and that revenue provided for
software and other things.  Not so today.  Software development is
expensive, if you're paying for it, and sometimes some software can be
free.  Not free to develop, free to attract users.
There is much more software available today than DEC could ever dream of
providing.  Look at browsers.  Most are free to the users.  But not so
free to develop, unless time and effort are provided free.  Nor are most
of them a simple application.  Nor are most of them a static product.
If you're dreaming that VSI will ever provide you with a browser, wake
up, accept reality.  It's not going to happen.  Explain how they would
ever recoup the development effort and expense.  Not going to happen.

True.

A modern browser is 20-25 million lines of code.

It is code where security fixes need to be rolled out extremely fast.

Very resource demanding.

MS gave up doing their own and just port Chromium and they are
a 140 B$ company.

Arne

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2020-09-11, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
Setup a small Linux box with your desired modern web browser and log
onto the Linux box over SSH so you can send the X11 output directly
from your Linux session to your VMS workstation.
You now have a modern web browser which you can now directly use from
your VMS workstation.

How do I download a file? Save it to the disk on linux or whatever,
log in there, find it, somehow copy it to VMS, possibly fix the file
attributes, etc.

I stopped trying to use OpenVMS as a desktop in 2006. I don't miss the
effort involved in that usage, either. It was tedious... then. That was
also using Windows as an adjunct, as some operations just don't work on
OpenVMS. And with the then-workable versions of the Mozilla tools that
were available on OpenVMS back then; Firefox, Seahorse, etc.

Pushing files over to OpenVMS with scp or sftp is typical now, or using
scp or sftp or curl from OpenVMS to push or pull files.

For goodness sake, Phillip just use some form of a network based file
system if that matters to you, or is that too modern a concept for you ?

It's interesting to note how common and how easy file shares have
become on other platforms.

Setting up file shares is "fun" on OpenVMS, as that means using NFS
share or the NFS client, or using the ancient Samba from HPE or the
much more recent Samba from VSI.

SMB client and SMB server support on OpenVMS is problematic, even with
the newer Samba port. And there's no SMB client for OpenVMS.

With OpenVMS used as a server, WebUI looks interesting. There's a whole
lot of remote server management and remote app management work and
development-tools-related work awaiting, too.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Stephen Hoffman
I stopped trying to use OpenVMS as a desktop in 2006. I don't miss the
effort involved in that usage, either.

Plug in a monitor, log in to CDE. What could be easier?

Post by Stephen Hoffman
It was tedious... then. That was
also using Windows as an adjunct, as some operations just don't work on
OpenVMS. And with the then-workable versions of the Mozilla tools that
were available on OpenVMS back then; Firefox, Seahorse, etc.

I miss only a good web browser. I used Mozilla on VMS for years. Not
ideal but workable. The main reasons it is not useful anymore are
expired certificates and JavaScript bells and whistles which manage to
make websites slower and slower even as the hardware gets faster and
faster.

[Chris]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Stephen Hoffman
I stopped trying to use OpenVMS as a desktop in 2006. I don't miss the
effort involved in that usage, either.

Plug in a monitor, log in to CDE. What could be easier?

Post by Stephen Hoffman
It was tedious... then. That was
also using Windows as an adjunct, as some operations just don't work on
OpenVMS. And with the then-workable versions of the Mozilla tools that
were available on OpenVMS back then; Firefox, Seahorse, etc.

I miss only a good web browser. I used Mozilla on VMS for years. Not
ideal but workable. The main reasons it is not useful anymore are
expired certificates and JavaScript bells and whistles which manage to
make websites slower and slower even as the hardware gets faster and
faster.

Web applications become ever more complex, with many third party sites
referred to, downloading mini script apps to do a myriad of things, yet
browser clients like Firefox are expected to deal with it all. Web
server code needs to know what browser is in use, so the pages can be
presented in a readable format. There are dozens of different browsers
and revisions and server code can't work for all, so probably only
the last few client revisions can be supported, without the usual
"please update your browser" message.

It's a real dog's breakfast, but the whole world works through the web
now for just about everything and is even necessary for tax returns,
insurance and so much else that we take for granted. The easiest way to
deal with it is to have a separate machine just for the internet and
perhaps for a few ms legacy apps. All you need to do then is to work
out how to share data between that and your other systems, whether it
be vms, unix , linux or other. You can't do it all on a single machine,
but let each do what it is best at...

Chris

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Chris

Post by Stephen Hoffman
It was tedious... then. That was
also using Windows as an adjunct, as some operations just don't work on
OpenVMS.  And with the then-workable versions of the Mozilla tools that
were available on OpenVMS back then; Firefox, Seahorse, etc.

I miss only a good web browser.  I used Mozilla on VMS for years.  Not
ideal but workable.  The main reasons it is not useful anymore are
expired certificates and JavaScript bells and whistles which manage to
make websites slower and slower even as the hardware gets faster and
faster.

Web applications become ever more complex, with many third party sites
referred to, downloading mini script apps to do a myriad of things, yet
browser clients like Firefox are expected to deal with it all. Web
server code needs to know what browser is in use, so the pages can be
presented in a readable format. There are dozens of different browsers
and revisions and server code can't work for all, so probably only
the last few client revisions can be supported, without the usual
"please update your browser" message.
It's a real dog's breakfast, but the whole world works through the web
now for just about everything and is even necessary for tax returns,
insurance and so much else that we take for granted. The easiest way to
deal with it is to have a separate machine just for the internet and
perhaps for a few ms legacy apps. All you need to do then is to work
out how to share data between that and your other systems, whether it
be vms, unix , linux or other. You can't do it all on a single machine,
but let each do what it is best at...

Modern web client side has become extremely complex.

Tons of JS libraries being included.

Transpiling TS or later ES to older ES.

Etc.

But I actually thought that the browser dependency
hell had improved.

Most recent browsers supports the standards pretty well
and older browsers is just kicked out.

And differences in screen real estate should be handled
by responsive designs controlled by CSS.

Arne

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

Post by Chris
Web applications become ever more complex, with many third party sites
referred to, downloading mini script apps to do a myriad of things, yet
browser clients like Firefox are expected to deal with it all. Web
server code needs to know what browser is in use, so the pages can be
presented in a readable format. There are dozens of different browsers
and revisions and server code can't work for all, so probably only
the last few client revisions can be supported, without the usual
"please update your browser" message.

Which really defeats the purpose.

Anyone who slaps a `this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web
page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had
very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another
word processor, or another network.

---Tim Berners-Lee

Post by Chris
It's a real dog's breakfast, but the whole world works through the web
now for just about everything and is even necessary for tax returns,
insurance and so much else that we take for granted.

Sure, but that doesn't mean a) that it couldn't be done better and b)
that it couldn't be done on VMS.

Post by Chris
The easiest way to
deal with it is to have a separate machine just for the internet and
perhaps for a few ms legacy apps. All you need to do then is to work
out how to share data between that and your other systems, whether it
be vms, unix , linux or other.

My impression is that those who suggest this as a solution haven't used
a web browser for much more than just looking at something. There is a
whole world of uploading, downloading, looking at local files and so on
which is more difficult or impossible if the browser is running on
another system.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
Web applications become ever more complex, with many third party sites
referred to, downloading mini script apps to do a myriad of things, yet
browser clients like Firefox are expected to deal with it all. Web
server code needs to know what browser is in use, so the pages can be
presented in a readable format. There are dozens of different browsers
and revisions and server code can't work for all, so probably only
the last few client revisions can be supported, without the usual
"please update your browser" message.

Which really defeats the purpose.

The goal is to have a better UX and functionallity. You have that.

I only use Forefox (Win10) and I havn't found a web page that
doesn't "work". No matter if it is a corporate page or some
state agency or whatever.

I guess that the standards has become firmer and the frameworks
used to build the pages are more standard confirming from the start.
Very few build web pages from raw HTML today.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Anyone who slaps a `this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web
page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had
very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another
word processor, or another network.
---Tim Berners-Lee

When was that written? Many people has said things in the past
that is not really relevant in todays world. It is not hard to find
quotes that just are irrelevant today.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
It's a real dog's breakfast, but the whole world works through the web
now for just about everything and is even necessary for tax returns,
insurance and so much else that we take for granted.

Sure, but that doesn't mean a) that it couldn't be done better and b)
that it couldn't be done on VMS.

The fact is that a) technically you might do that on VMS but probably
not "better" and b) there is no reason or business case to do that.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
The easiest way to
deal with it is to have a separate machine just for the internet and
perhaps for a few ms legacy apps. All you need to do then is to work
out how to share data between that and your other systems, whether it
be vms, unix , linux or other.

My impression is that those who suggest this as a solution haven't used
a web browser for much more than just looking at something.

I think many used a browser to order stuff, book tickets, manage their
baink affairs, communicate with others. Very few just "look at things".

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
There is a
whole world of uploading, downloading,...

That is a very small part of the overall browser usuage. And basically
techical oriented

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
looking at local files...

What "local files"? I use Win10 Windows Explorer, not a browser.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
and so on
which is more difficult or impossible if the browser is running on
another system.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
Web applications become ever more complex, with many third party sites
referred to, downloading mini script apps to do a myriad of things, yet
browser clients like Firefox are expected to deal with it all. Web
server code needs to know what browser is in use, so the pages can be
presented in a readable format. There are dozens of different browsers
and revisions and server code can't work for all, so probably only
the last few client revisions can be supported, without the usual
"please update your browser" message.

Which really defeats the purpose.
Anyone who slaps a `this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web
page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had
very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another
word processor, or another network.
---Tim Berners-Lee

The problem is, how do things get "fixed" without issuing the "fix" as a
new version of a browser? This assumes that new versions are actually
better and not just more slop added to the old slop.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
It's a real dog's breakfast, but the whole world works through the web
now for just about everything and is even necessary for tax returns,
insurance and so much else that we take for granted.

Sure, but that doesn't mean a) that it couldn't be done better and b)
that it couldn't be done on VMS.

How can it get better if the maintainers cannot issue new versions?

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
The easiest way to
deal with it is to have a separate machine just for the internet and
perhaps for a few ms legacy apps. All you need to do then is to work
out how to share data between that and your other systems, whether it
be vms, unix , linux or other.

Yes, and that is what I do. I'm thinking of looking at a server version
of WEENDOZE to see if it might be less of an agony that I feel when
looking at WEENDOZE 10.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
My impression is that those who suggest this as a solution haven't used
a web browser for much more than just looking at something. There is a
whole world of uploading, downloading, looking at local files and so on
which is more difficult or impossible if the browser is running on
another system.

That is true, so, bite the bullet, use a WEENDOZE system for the things
it does best, and learn how to use it along with VMS. It just isn't
difficult to move data between the systems.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
Web applications become ever more complex, with many third party sites
referred to, downloading mini script apps to do a myriad of things, yet
browser clients like Firefox are expected to deal with it all. Web
server code needs to know what browser is in use, so the pages can be
presented in a readable format. There are dozens of different browsers
and revisions and server code can't work for all, so probably only
the last few client revisions can be supported, without the usual
"please update your browser" message.

Which really defeats the purpose.
 Anyone who slaps a `this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web
 page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had
 very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another
 word processor, or another network.
                                                             ---Tim Berners-Lee

Note that the quote is from 1996.

:-)

Post by Dave Froble
The problem is, how do things get "fixed" without issuing the "fix" as a
new version of a browser?  This assumes that new versions are actually
better and not just more slop added to the old slop.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
It's a real dog's breakfast, but the whole world works through the web
now for just about everything and is even necessary for tax returns,
insurance and so much else that we take for granted.

Sure, but that doesn't mean a) that it couldn't be done better and b)
that it couldn't be done on VMS.

How can it get better if the maintainers cannot issue new versions?

New browser versions get released all the time.

Major browsers typical have a planned release about once per month
and the ability to release emergency vulnerability fixes in 24-48 hours.

Arne

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
Web applications become ever more complex, with many third party sites
referred to, downloading mini script apps to do a myriad of things, yet
browser clients like Firefox are expected to deal with it all. Web
server code needs to know what browser is in use, so the pages can be
presented in a readable format. There are dozens of different browsers
and revisions and server code can't work for all, so probably only
the last few client revisions can be supported, without the usual
"please update your browser" message.

Which really defeats the purpose.
 Anyone who slaps a `this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web
 page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,  when
you had
 very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another
 word processor, or another network.
                                                             ---Tim
Berners-Lee

Note that the quote is from 1996.
:-)

Post by Dave Froble
The problem is, how do things get "fixed" without issuing the "fix" as a
new version of a browser?  This assumes that new versions are actually
better and not just more slop added to the old slop.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Chris
It's a real dog's breakfast, but the whole world works through the web
now for just about everything and is even necessary for tax returns,
insurance and so much else that we take for granted.

Sure, but that doesn't mean a) that it couldn't be done better and b)
that it couldn't be done on VMS.

How can it get better if the maintainers cannot issue new versions?

New browser versions get released all the time.
Major browsers typical have a planned release about once per month
and the ability to release emergency vulnerability fixes in 24-48 hours.
Arne

Firefox have had the following 25 versions since 12 month ago.
No problem since they gets automatically installed when the
browser is started...

80.0.1
80.0
79.0
78.0.2
78.0.1
78.0
77.0.1
77.0
76.0.1
76.0
75.0
74.0.1
74.0
73.0.1
73.0
72.0.2
72.0.1
72.0
71.0
70.0.1
70.0
69.0.3
69.0.2
69.0.1
69.0

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Jan-Erik Söderholm

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Dave Froble
How can it get better if the maintainers cannot issue new versions?

New browser versions get released all the time.
Major browsers typical have a planned release about once per month
and the ability to release emergency vulnerability fixes in 24-48 hours.

Firefox have had the following 25 versions since 12 month ago.
No problem since they gets automatically installed when the
browser is started...
80.0.1
80.0
79.0
78.0.2
78.0.1
78.0
77.0.1
77.0
76.0.1
76.0
75.0
74.0.1
74.0
73.0.1
73.0
72.0.2
72.0.1
72.0
71.0
70.0.1
70.0
69.0.3
69.0.2
69.0.1
69.0

Yes. It just happens.

On platforms where there is sufficient support.

Arne

[Stephen Hoffman]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Stephen Hoffman
I stopped trying to use OpenVMS as a desktop in 2006. I don't miss the
effort involved in that usage, either.

Plug in a monitor, log in to CDE. What could be easier?

Most of us need rather more than DECwindows CDE and its apps of our
desktops, but if DECwindows CDE and its apps works for your needs, good
on you.

Building a desktop computer and its desktop-focused apps and frameworks
and tooling, piece by piece, whether ported or created, and on an
expensive and server-focused OS platform, is a project not to be
underestimated.

And the number of (paying) folks that would find DECwindows CDE and its
apps sufficient for desktop usage can't be overestimated.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Stephen Hoffman
I stopped trying to use OpenVMS as a desktop in 2006. I don't miss the
effort involved in that usage, either.

Plug in a monitor, log in to CDE. What could be easier?

How about not being able to run all the applications that everyone
else runs on either Linux, Windows or macOS ?

Simon.

[Chris]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Stephen Hoffman
I stopped trying to use OpenVMS as a desktop in 2006. I don't miss the
effort involved in that usage, either.

Plug in a monitor, log in to CDE. What could be easier?

How about not being able to run all the applications that everyone
else runs on either Linux, Windows or macOS ?
Simon.

Or, the most important thing of all, seamless networking that the
whole world and dog takes for granted on just about every other
system Such hard work to get anything done on vms in the old days
in terms of interoperability.

Nothing much lasts for long here without full networking ability...

Chris