[Info-vax] VMS EOL (I kind of feel sick)

[Neil Rieck]

I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:

http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149

and I kind of feel sick.

When VAX EOL letters were sent out, VMS had already been running for a long time on Alpha. During the merger, Compaq announced the end of Alpha development but we knew Itanium was waiting in the wings (although first boot was a long way off). Itanium systems appeared and (like Alpha) there were some growing pains. Then Alpha EOL letters were sent out and most of us knew we would have a place to move to when the time came (allocating funds is so much more difficult for customers this side of y2k; too many MBAs). This recent announcement is the worst of all because even though HP won the lawsuit with Oracle (forcing Oracle to support Oracle database products on HP systems running on Itanium chips), HP has decided not to support one of their own software products on an Itanium chip released in November of last year. Since no one is going to take HP to court over this fubar (Oracle should just to prove a point), this recent letter to HP customers can only be interpreted one way: VMS EOL.

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

[V***@SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <2f9aa2de-8192-4505-9110-***@googlegroups.com>, Neil Rieck <***@sympatico.ca> writes:
>I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterp=
>rise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>
>http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=3D13/06/06/2422149
>
>and I kind of feel sick.

Me too! I feel your pain.



>When VAX EOL letters were sent out, VMS had already been running for a long=
> time on Alpha. During the merger, Compaq announced the end of Alpha develo=
>pment but we knew Itanium was waiting in the wings (although first boot was=
> a long way off). Itanium systems appeared and (like Alpha) there were some=
> growing pains. Then Alpha EOL letters were sent out and most of us knew we=
> would have a place to move to when the time came (allocating funds is so m=
>uch more difficult for customers this side of y2k; too many MBAs). This rec=
>ent announcement is the worst of all because even though HP won the lawsuit=
> with Oracle (forcing Oracle to support Oracle database products on HP syst=
>ems running on Itanium chips), HP has decided not to support one of their o=
>wn software products on an Itanium chip released in November of last year. =
>Since no one is going to take HP to court over this fubar (Oracle should ju=
>st to prove a point), this recent letter to HP customers can only be interp=
>reted one way: VMS EOL.

What's deplorable in that announcement is the "Hey, look at what a fabulous
thing VMS on Itanium is/was for AccuWeather and Sberbank" and then, the "Oh,
by the way, we're EOLing VMS". Hopelessly Pathetic.

Just Wednesday, I was on-site at a company that's just now installing BL870s
as replacements for their Alphas and next week, I'm off to yet another site
doing much the same. WTF HP?

This is announcement was just the impetus to finally get off my keister and
open up the Brew-Pub and Restaurant I've dreamt of starting for years. The
only EOL I'll see then will be on the kegs! :)
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[MG]

On 7-jun-2013 15:25, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> What's deplorable in that announcement is the "Hey, look at what a fabulous
> thing VMS on Itanium is/was for AccuWeather and Sberbank" and then, the "Oh,
> by the way, we're EOLing VMS". Hopelessly Pathetic.

Those are old stories, too! I remember reading those 'testimonials'
easily ten or so years ago.

What I'd be more interested in finding out, how that Singaporean stock
exchange is --- which only a few months ago moved to VMS --- is feeling
/right now/.

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.vms/2WpB9xVZzqM/Uz0YH1CnYXsJ>


> This is announcement was just the impetus to finally get off my keister
> and open up the Brew-Pub and Restaurant I've dreamt of starting for years.
> The only EOL I'll see then will be on the kegs! :)

Good for you, that sounds excellent. The whole computer and computing
industry is a joke and more and more going to hell anyway.

It's one of the reasons I returned to graphics myself.

- MG

[Neil Rieck]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 9:25:09 AM UTC-4, ***@SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <2f9aa2de-8192-4505-9110-***@googlegroups.com>, Neil Rieck <***@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> >I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterp=
>
> >rise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>
> >
>
> >http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=3D13/06/06/2422149
>
> >
>
> >and I kind of feel sick.
>
>
>
> Me too! I feel your pain.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >When VAX EOL letters were sent out, VMS had already been running for a long=
>
> > time on Alpha. During the merger, Compaq announced the end of Alpha develo=
>
> >pment but we knew Itanium was waiting in the wings (although first boot was=
>
> > a long way off). Itanium systems appeared and (like Alpha) there were some=
>
> > growing pains. Then Alpha EOL letters were sent out and most of us knew we=
>
> > would have a place to move to when the time came (allocating funds is so m=
>
> >uch more difficult for customers this side of y2k; too many MBAs). This rec=
>
> >ent announcement is the worst of all because even though HP won the lawsuit=
>
> > with Oracle (forcing Oracle to support Oracle database products on HP syst=
>
> >ems running on Itanium chips), HP has decided not to support one of their o=
>
> >wn software products on an Itanium chip released in November of last year. =
>
> >Since no one is going to take HP to court over this fubar (Oracle should ju=
>
> >st to prove a point), this recent letter to HP customers can only be interp=
>
> >reted one way: VMS EOL.
>
>
>
> What's deplorable in that announcement is the "Hey, look at what a fabulous
>
> thing VMS on Itanium is/was for AccuWeather and Sberbank" and then, the "Oh,
>
> by the way, we're EOLing VMS". Hopelessly Pathetic.
>
>
>
> Just Wednesday, I was on-site at a company that's just now installing BL870s
>
> as replacements for their Alphas and next week, I'm off to yet another site
>
> doing much the same. WTF HP?
>
>
>
> This is announcement was just the impetus to finally get off my keister and
>
> open up the Brew-Pub and Restaurant I've dreamt of starting for years. The
>
> only EOL I'll see then will be on the kegs! :)
>
> --
>
> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
>
>
>
> Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

Yes, that AccuWeather blurb in the middle of the announcement was very much like a corporate version of the Jedi-hand-wave (these are not the droids you are looking for). In HP's case "we have no intentions of spending another cent on OpenVMS, but continue feeling good while running a has-been OS)

Neil Rieck

[Forster, Michael]

I'd make the trip to NJ to meet you and check out the pub.
________________________________________
From: info-vax-***@rbnsn.com [info-vax-***@rbnsn.com] on behalf of [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:25 AM
To: info-***@rbnsn.com
Subject: Re: [Info-vax] VMS EOL (I kind of feel sick)

In article <2f9aa2de-8192-4505-9110-***@googlegroups.com>, Neil Rieck <***@sympatico.ca> writes:
>I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterp=
>rise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>
>http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=3D13/06/06/2422149
>
>and I kind of feel sick.

Me too! I feel your pain.



>When VAX EOL letters were sent out, VMS had already been running for a long=
> time on Alpha. During the merger, Compaq announced the end of Alpha develo=
>pment but we knew Itanium was waiting in the wings (although first boot was=
> a long way off). Itanium systems appeared and (like Alpha) there were some=
> growing pains. Then Alpha EOL letters were sent out and most of us knew we=
> would have a place to move to when the time came (allocating funds is so m=
>uch more difficult for customers this side of y2k; too many MBAs). This rec=
>ent announcement is the worst of all because even though HP won the lawsuit=
> with Oracle (forcing Oracle to support Oracle database products on HP syst=
>ems running on Itanium chips), HP has decided not to support one of their o=
>wn software products on an Itanium chip released in November of last year. =
>Since no one is going to take HP to court over this fubar (Oracle should ju=
>st to prove a point), this recent letter to HP customers can only be interp=
>reted one way: VMS EOL.

What's deplorable in that announcement is the "Hey, look at what a fabulous
thing VMS on Itanium is/was for AccuWeather and Sberbank" and then, the "Oh,
by the way, we're EOLing VMS". Hopelessly Pathetic.

Just Wednesday, I was on-site at a company that's just now installing BL870s
as replacements for their Alphas and next week, I'm off to yet another site
doing much the same. WTF HP?

This is announcement was just the impetus to finally get off my keister and
open up the Brew-Pub and Restaurant I've dreamt of starting for years. The
only EOL I'll see then will be on the kegs! :)
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[Paul Sture]

In article <***@SendSpamHere.ORG>,
VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> What's deplorable in that announcement is the "Hey, look at what a fabulous
> thing VMS on Itanium is/was for AccuWeather and Sberbank" and then, the "Oh,
> by the way, we're EOLing VMS". Hopelessly Pathetic.

:-(

> Just Wednesday, I was on-site at a company that's just now installing BL870s
> as replacements for their Alphas and next week, I'm off to yet another site
> doing much the same. WTF HP?

Out of interest is this sort of customer buying their shiny new hardware
direct from HP or is it avoiding the hassle and buying from channel
suppliers? I am thinking of that "only 2000 customers" quote here...

> This is announcement was just the impetus to finally get off my keister and
> open up the Brew-Pub and Restaurant I've dreamt of starting for years. The
> only EOL I'll see then will be on the kegs! :)

You only live once. Why not give "Living the dream" a go?

;.)

(Says Paul, who's doing some farming at the moment, and much enjoying
the fresh air and exercise. It definitely beats offices with crap
aircon, even if muscles I had forgotten I had are now complaining)

--
Paul Sture

[V***@SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <nospam-***@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <***@sture.ch> writes:
>In article <***@SendSpamHere.ORG>,
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> What's deplorable in that announcement is the "Hey, look at what a fabulous
>> thing VMS on Itanium is/was for AccuWeather and Sberbank" and then, the "Oh,
>> by the way, we're EOLing VMS". Hopelessly Pathetic.
>
>:-(
>
>> Just Wednesday, I was on-site at a company that's just now installing BL870s
>> as replacements for their Alphas and next week, I'm off to yet another site
>> doing much the same. WTF HP?
>
>Out of interest is this sort of customer buying their shiny new hardware
>direct from HP or is it avoiding the hassle and buying from channel
>suppliers? I am thinking of that "only 2000 customers" quote here...

I have no knowledge as to how these new BL870s are purchased. One thing
this particular company does is to install thessystem with their turnkey
software and then, in turn, these systems are installed into other "much
more visible" places. So, there might be several 100 "customers" using
these BL870s but only one buyer of them.

One of my other clients has a slew of systems installed in a co-lo site
running the client's home-grown software. Time is then sold as a service
to a number of very large companies. One of them, the reason that I had
written my DCL Debugger, is a well-known name in the aero-space industry.
Does HP see this aero-space company as a customer? Probably not; however,
their decision certainly affects them as well as 2 dozen other companies
that use this service.



>> This is announcement was just the impetus to finally get off my keister and
>> open up the Brew-Pub and Restaurant I've dreamt of starting for years. The
>> only EOL I'll see then will be on the kegs! :)
>
>You only live once. Why not give "Living the dream" a go?

We'll see.



>(Says Paul, who's doing some farming at the moment, and much enjoying
>the fresh air and exercise. It definitely beats offices with crap
>aircon, even if muscles I had forgotten I had are now complaining)

Yep, as you get old, the things you don't want to get stiff do while the
things you want to don't! ;) :)

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

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[David Froble]

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <nospam-***@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <***@sture.ch> writes:
>> In article <***@SendSpamHere.ORG>,
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>
>>> What's deplorable in that announcement is the "Hey, look at what a fabulous
>>> thing VMS on Itanium is/was for AccuWeather and Sberbank" and then, the "Oh,
>>> by the way, we're EOLing VMS". Hopelessly Pathetic.
>> :-(
>>
>>> Just Wednesday, I was on-site at a company that's just now installing BL870s
>>> as replacements for their Alphas and next week, I'm off to yet another site
>>> doing much the same. WTF HP?
>> Out of interest is this sort of customer buying their shiny new hardware
>> direct from HP or is it avoiding the hassle and buying from channel
>> suppliers? I am thinking of that "only 2000 customers" quote here...
>
> I have no knowledge as to how these new BL870s are purchased. One thing
> this particular company does is to install thessystem with their turnkey
> software and then, in turn, these systems are installed into other "much
> more visible" places. So, there might be several 100 "customers" using
> these BL870s but only one buyer of them.
>
> One of my other clients has a slew of systems installed in a co-lo site
> running the client's home-grown software. Time is then sold as a service
> to a number of very large companies. One of them, the reason that I had
> written my DCL Debugger, is a well-known name in the aero-space industry.
> Does HP see this aero-space company as a customer? Probably not; however,
> their decision certainly affects them as well as 2 dozen other companies
> that use this service.
>
>
>
>>> This is announcement was just the impetus to finally get off my keister and
>>> open up the Brew-Pub and Restaurant I've dreamt of starting for years. The
>>> only EOL I'll see then will be on the kegs! :)
>> You only live once. Why not give "Living the dream" a go?
>
> We'll see.
>
>
>
>> (Says Paul, who's doing some farming at the moment, and much enjoying
>> the fresh air and exercise. It definitely beats offices with crap
>> aircon, even if muscles I had forgotten I had are now complaining)
>
> Yep, as you get old, the things you don't want to get stiff do while the
> things you want to don't! ;) :)
>

And there, the greatest truth is finally unveiled ...

[MG]

On 7-jun-2013 13:31, Neil Rieck wrote:
> I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise
> Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>
> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149
>
> and I kind of feel sick.

You didn't already feel sick about the disgusting things that came
out of that weird creature at Discover 2012? (Which Hoffman kindly
turned into a transcript and posted here, at the time.)


> HP has decided not tosupport one of their own software products on an
> Itanium chip released in Novemberof last year. Since no one is going to
> take HP to court over this fubar (Oracleshould just to prove a point).

Oracle indeed should, but then, I stopped caring altogether. (It sure
doesn't help that Oracle is, itself, a typical mega-scumpany like HP.)

- MG

[s***@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, Neil Rieck wrote:
> I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>
>
>
> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149

Has anyone found this story originally from www.openvms.org on a web site that belongs to www.hp.com. I cannot believe this is not a newsgroup troll if I am unable to find this statement on an official HP web site.

Googling quotes from the www.openvms.org story just points me to that web site and this new group but no where else. If I google a quote about "AccuWeather improved runtime performance" I find that the AccuWeather story comes from an Intel web page and not an HP web page.

Give me a URL about this from www.hp.com!!! Where's the BEEF!!!

[BillPedersen]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:55:51 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> > I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149
>
>
>
> Has anyone found this story originally from www.openvms.org on a web site that belongs to www.hp.com. I cannot believe this is not a newsgroup troll if I am unable to find this statement on an official HP web site.
>
>
>
> Googling quotes from the www.openvms.org story just points me to that web site and this new group but no where else. If I google a quote about "AccuWeather improved runtime performance" I find that the AccuWeather story comes from an Intel web page and not an HP web page.
>
>
>
> Give me a URL about this from www.hp.com!!! Where's the BEEF!!!

Here is the Accu-Weather doc from HP:

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/V2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=4AA4-2153ENW&cc=us&lc=en

And the Sherbank doc...

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/V2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA3-6327ENW.pdf

These are both under:

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/success-stories.html

As far as the Customer Letter I do not know if HP has published it directly yet or not... Not a surprise there.

Bill.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-06-07, ***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, Neil Rieck wrote:
>> I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149
>
> Has anyone found this story originally from www.openvms.org on a web site that belongs to www.hp.com. I cannot believe this is not a newsgroup troll if I am unable to find this statement on an official HP web site.
>
> Googling quotes from the www.openvms.org story just points me to that web site and this new group but no where else. If I google a quote about "AccuWeather improved runtime performance" I find that the AccuWeather story comes from an Intel web page and not an HP web page.
>
> Give me a URL about this from www.hp.com!!! Where's the BEEF!!!

Keith Parris, who posted the original letter here in comp.os.vms, is a HP
employee.

However, I strongly agree; a posting in comp.os.vms is not something which
can be used as a basis for decision making.

I've already asked Keith for a official HP address containing this letter
and I was ignored, so I assume it's not on a HP site yet.

Keith, when can we expect to see this letter on a official HP website or
when can customers be expected to be formally notified by letter ?

Thanks,

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[BillPedersen]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 4:52:59 AM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2013-06-07, ***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, Neil Rieck wrote:
> >> I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149
> >
> > Has anyone found this story originally from www.openvms.org on a web site that belongs to www.hp.com. I cannot believe this is not a newsgroup troll if I am unable to find this statement on an official HP web site.
> >
> > Googling quotes from the www.openvms.org story just points me to that web site and this new group but no where else. If I google a quote about "AccuWeather improved runtime performance" I find that the AccuWeather story comes from an Intel web page and not an HP web page.
> >
> > Give me a URL about this from www.hp.com!!! Where's the BEEF!!!
>
> Keith Parris, who posted the original letter here in comp.os.vms, is a HP
> employee.
>
> However, I strongly agree; a posting in comp.os.vms is not something which
> can be used as a basis for decision making.
>
> I've already asked Keith for a official HP address containing this letter
> and I was ignored, so I assume it's not on a HP site yet.
>
> Keith, when can we expect to see this letter on a official HP website or
> when can customers be expected to be formally notified by letter ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon.
> --
>
> Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Simon:

Rest assured that this is not a hoax. I have been sent a PDF of the letter, before it was public. It is signed by Ric Lewis and is on his "stationery". I can also confirm that there are no typos in the original letter. The one discussed elsewhere was as Keith pointed out his doing. The key paragraph is:

"With the changes to extend sales and support of the HP Integrity i2 servers with OpenVMS, we will not offer OpenVMS on HP Integrity i4 ("Poulson") servers. Please review the updated OpenVMS roadmap."

I also know that my clients who have direct involvement with HP have either received this letter or a telephone call from HP.

Why it has not been posted to the web site yet I could not say.

But the problem is real.

Bill.

While I

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 9:06 AM, BillPedersen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 4:52:59 AM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2013-06-07, ***@gmail.com <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>>> I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149
>>>
>>> Has anyone found this story originally from www.openvms.org on a web site that belongs to www.hp.com. I cannot believe this is not a newsgroup troll if I am unable to find this statement on an official HP web site.
>>>
>>> Googling quotes from the www.openvms.org story just points me to that web site and this new group but no where else. If I google a quote about "AccuWeather improved runtime performance" I find that the AccuWeather story comes from an Intel web page and not an HP web page.
>>>
>>> Give me a URL about this from www.hp.com!!! Where's the BEEF!!!
>>
>> Keith Parris, who posted the original letter here in comp.os.vms, is a HP
>> employee.
>>
>> However, I strongly agree; a posting in comp.os.vms is not something which
>> can be used as a basis for decision making.
>>
>> I've already asked Keith for a official HP address containing this letter
>> and I was ignored, so I assume it's not on a HP site yet.
>>
>> Keith, when can we expect to see this letter on a official HP website or
>> when can customers be expected to be formally notified by letter ?

> Rest assured that this is not a hoax. I have been sent a PDF of the letter, before it was public. It is signed by Ric Lewis and is on his "stationery". I can also confirm that there are no typos in the original letter. The one discussed elsewhere was as Keith pointed out his doing. The key paragraph is:
>
> "With the changes to extend sales and support of the HP Integrity i2 servers with OpenVMS, we will not offer OpenVMS on HP Integrity i4 ("Poulson") servers. Please review the updated OpenVMS roadmap."
>
> I also know that my clients who have direct involvement with HP have either received this letter or a telephone call from HP.
>
> Why it has not been posted to the web site yet I could not say.
>
> But the problem is real.

I think there are other key paragraphs:

"We are committed to providing you updates and support for the V8.4
OpenVMS operating environment through at least December 31, 2020."

"We will also extend Integrity i2 server hardware support through at
least December 31, 2020. "

"We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through the
lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio of
servers, software, and solutions, including support for transitions to
NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."

Especially the last one.

Arne


Arne

[BillPedersen]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
> "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through the
> lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio of
> servers, software, and solutions, including support for transitions to
> NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
>

I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!

Bill.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 10:24 AM, BillPedersen wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through the
>> lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio of
>> servers, software, and solutions, including support for transitions to
>> NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
>>
>
> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!

So would I.

But what you and I would like to see is not so important. What HP
is deciding and telling customers is important.

Arne

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >
> > "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through the
> > lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio of
> > servers, software, and solutions, including support for transitions to
> > NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
> >
>
> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!

What's your second choice?

[Scott Dorsey]

Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>
>What's your second choice?

Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
there's no reason to keep it proprietary. You don't gain anything but goodwill
from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>>In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>
>>What's your second choice?
>
> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
> there's no reason to keep it proprietary. You don't gain anything but goodwill
> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.

AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish.

According to various postings over the years, there's also third party code
in the VMS code base.

Even if there isn't, someone within HP has to make the decision to do
the release and to spend money auditing the code to make sure it's ok
to be released.

If HP have not made the various PDP-11 operating system code bases freely
available after all this time in spite of multiple requests from people,
then imagine how unlikely it is that someone will do that for VMS.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[Scott Dorsey]

Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
>If HP have not made the various PDP-11 operating system code bases freely
>available after all this time in spite of multiple requests from people,
>then imagine how unlikely it is that someone will do that for VMS.

I didn't say it was LIKELY, I just said it was my next choice.

And, for the life of me, I have no idea why HP has not made the various
PDP-11 (and PDP-8) operating systems freely available. It would seem a
winning proposition for everybody involved. There's no more money to
be milked out of that cow anymore, it's time to put it to pasture.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <kovr4r$dnu$***@panix2.panix.com>,
***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> And, for the life of me, I have no idea why HP has not made the various
> PDP-11 (and PDP-8) operating systems freely available. It would seem a
> winning proposition for everybody involved. There's no more money to
> be milked out of that cow anymore, it's time to put it to pasture.
> --scott

Don't forget the PDP-10 OSs! TENEX on x86, anyone?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2013-06-08 20:47, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <kovr4r$dnu$***@panix2.panix.com>,
> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> And, for the life of me, I have no idea why HP has not made the various
>> PDP-11 (and PDP-8) operating systems freely available. It would seem a
>> winning proposition for everybody involved. There's no more money to
>> be milked out of that cow anymore, it's time to put it to pasture.
>> --scott
>
> Don't forget the PDP-10 OSs! TENEX on x86, anyone?

Well, TENEX was done by BBN. But TOPS-10 and Tops-20 were both released
to XKL, if I remember. So their status is very different from the PDP-11
scene.

Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: ***@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

[John Wallace]

On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
Earth.UFP> wrote:
> On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Howard S Shubs  <***@shubs.net> wrote:
> >>In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>
> >>What's your second choice?
>
> > Release the source code under GNU.  If you're not making any money off of it,
> > there's no reason to keep it proprietary.  You don't gain anything but goodwill
> > from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>
> AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish.
>
> According to various postings over the years, there's also third party code
> in the VMS code base.
>
> Even if there isn't, someone within HP has to make the decision to do
> the release and to spend money auditing the code to make sure it's ok
> to be released.
>
> If HP have not made the various PDP-11 operating system code bases freely
> available after all this time in spite of multiple requests from people,
> then imagine how unlikely it is that someone will do that for VMS.
>
> Simon.
>
> --
> Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

"AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"

Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.

In the case of the PDP11 OSes, the picture was/is complicated by the
presence of a previous commercial deal with a third party to provide
ongoing development, support, maintenance etc of the PDP11 (hw and
sw). Afaik, no such deal exists for the VMS business.

Also wrt PDP11s vs the VMS picture, there was only one real supplier
of PDP11s, and as such any group attempting a port and then attempting
to attract ongoing customers (not just tinkerers) would have to absorb
the full costs of chip and system design, testing, qualification, etc.
And the customers in general were on the way out.

On the other hand, VMS still has customers, for now. With a port of
VMS to a suitable choice of readily available non-IA64 server, the
basic hardware would already be designed, tested, qualified, supported
off the back of some other OS, ideally with a hardware break/fix
organisation already in place. So just the OS to look after. How hard
can it be :)

Still think the odds are against VMS source being released, but let's
see what the facts currently are, not what they used to be.

[Craig A. Berry]

In article
<a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
> Earth.UFP> wrote:

> "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>
> Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
> Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
> examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
> Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.

CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS. Even
just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
notices could be a fair chunk of work.

The SSH implementation is from a third party. I *think* it is the
folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that. The
as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process Software
for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of course), or
could port OpenSSH.

The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM. I assume
HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium. I have no
idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.

There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them. I
remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
firmware identifying it as such. SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
an unsupported warning and refused to use it. I was told money had
changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.

There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK. I think one of the open questions
is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or proprietary but
could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the architectures on
which VMS runs.

I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did release
everything it had the power to release.

[John Wallace]

On Jun 8, 8:53 pm, "Craig A. Berry" <***@mac.com.invalid>
wrote:
> In article
> <a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>  John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
> > Earth.UFP> wrote:
> > "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>
> > Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
> > Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
> > examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
> > Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.
>
> CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS.  Even
> just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
> notices could be a fair chunk of work.
>
> The SSH implementation is from a third party.  I *think* it is the
> folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that.  The
> as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
> probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process Software
> for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of course), or
> could port OpenSSH.
>
> The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM.  I assume
> HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
> various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium.  I have no
> idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.
>
> There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them.  I
> remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
> Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
> firmware identifying it as such.  SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
> an unsupported warning and refused to use it.  I was told money had
> changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
> restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
> I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
> non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.
>
> There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
> dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK.  I think one of the open questions
> is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or proprietary but
> could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the architectures on
> which VMS runs.
>
> I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
> work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did release
> everything it had the power to release.

OK, let's look at these as a (good) start.

GPL CDE not the same as in VMS: true. Does it matter given that (a)
VMS is seen as a server OS (b) GPL CDE is presumably (!) relatively
clean (eg 32bit safe AND 64bit safe, but possibly not yet VMS-ready).
Probably not a showstopper, yes?

SSH: fair comment. Options are available, effort (or finance) would
indeed be required. How much? I have little idea, others round here
might make better guesses.

IA64 compiler: moving to an existing non-IA64 platform might perhaps
be a bright idea at this point. How much work would be required to
make its existing compiler work in the VMS environment with the VMS
tools (compiler, debugger, etc)? Would VMS Debug be mandatory or would
something layered on e.g. gdb be acceptable (either long term or
interim)?

Vendor-restricted drivers: moving to an(other) existing platform might
simplify some aspects of that - the HW qual is already done. Drivers
may still be an issue, especially if the vendor likes to provide their
own drivers (hello Adaptec, how ya doing?).

It surely wouldn't trivial, but the only showstopper I'm seeing so far
is time and/or money, rather than lawyers, patents, licences, etc.
It'd have to be a lot more commercially plausible than something like
FreeVMS.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 4:44 PM, John Wallace wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:53 pm, "Craig A. Berry" <***@mac.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
>>> Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>> "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>>
>>> Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
>>> Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
>>> examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
>>> Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.
>>
>> CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS. Even
>> just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
>> notices could be a fair chunk of work.
>>
>> The SSH implementation is from a third party. I *think* it is the
>> folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that. The
>> as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
>> probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process Software
>> for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of course), or
>> could port OpenSSH.
>>
>> The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM. I assume
>> HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
>> various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium. I have no
>> idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.
>>
>> There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them. I
>> remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
>> Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
>> firmware identifying it as such. SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
>> an unsupported warning and refused to use it. I was told money had
>> changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
>> restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
>> I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
>> non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.
>>
>> There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
>> dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK. I think one of the open questions
>> is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or proprietary but
>> could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the architectures on
>> which VMS runs.
>>
>> I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
>> work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did release
>> everything it had the power to release.
>
> OK, let's look at these as a (good) start.
>
> GPL CDE not the same as in VMS: true. Does it matter given that (a)
> VMS is seen as a server OS (b) GPL CDE is presumably (!) relatively
> clean (eg 32bit safe AND 64bit safe, but possibly not yet VMS-ready).
> Probably not a showstopper, yes?
>
> SSH: fair comment. Options are available, effort (or finance) would
> indeed be required. How much? I have little idea, others round here
> might make better guesses.
>
> IA64 compiler: moving to an existing non-IA64 platform might perhaps
> be a bright idea at this point. How much work would be required to
> make its existing compiler work in the VMS environment with the VMS
> tools (compiler, debugger, etc)? Would VMS Debug be mandatory or would
> something layered on e.g. gdb be acceptable (either long term or
> interim)?
>
> Vendor-restricted drivers: moving to an(other) existing platform might
> simplify some aspects of that - the HW qual is already done. Drivers
> may still be an issue, especially if the vendor likes to provide their
> own drivers (hello Adaptec, how ya doing?).
>
> It surely wouldn't trivial, but the only showstopper I'm seeing so far
> is time and/or money, rather than lawyers, patents, licences, etc.
> It'd have to be a lot more commercially plausible than something like
> FreeVMS.

There are certainly solutions.

But I think it is important to define what you mean by VMS!

Do you want DCL and all LIB$/SYS$ functions?

Do you want VMS internals, RMS, driver compatibility, same
compilers, same debugger etc.?

Arne

[David Froble]

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 4:44 PM, John Wallace wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 8:53 pm, "Craig A. Berry" <***@mac.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
>>>> Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>> "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>>>
>>>> Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
>>>> Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
>>>> examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
>>>> Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.
>>>
>>> CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS. Even
>>> just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
>>> notices could be a fair chunk of work.
>>>
>>> The SSH implementation is from a third party. I *think* it is the
>>> folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that. The
>>> as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
>>> probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process Software
>>> for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of course), or
>>> could port OpenSSH.
>>>
>>> The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM. I assume
>>> HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
>>> various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium. I have no
>>> idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.
>>>
>>> There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them. I
>>> remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
>>> Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
>>> firmware identifying it as such. SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
>>> an unsupported warning and refused to use it. I was told money had
>>> changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
>>> restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
>>> I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
>>> non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.
>>>
>>> There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
>>> dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK. I think one of the open questions
>>> is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or proprietary but
>>> could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the architectures on
>>> which VMS runs.
>>>
>>> I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
>>> work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did release
>>> everything it had the power to release.
>>
>> OK, let's look at these as a (good) start.
>>
>> GPL CDE not the same as in VMS: true. Does it matter given that (a)
>> VMS is seen as a server OS (b) GPL CDE is presumably (!) relatively
>> clean (eg 32bit safe AND 64bit safe, but possibly not yet VMS-ready).
>> Probably not a showstopper, yes?
>>
>> SSH: fair comment. Options are available, effort (or finance) would
>> indeed be required. How much? I have little idea, others round here
>> might make better guesses.
>>
>> IA64 compiler: moving to an existing non-IA64 platform might perhaps
>> be a bright idea at this point. How much work would be required to
>> make its existing compiler work in the VMS environment with the VMS
>> tools (compiler, debugger, etc)? Would VMS Debug be mandatory or would
>> something layered on e.g. gdb be acceptable (either long term or
>> interim)?
>>
>> Vendor-restricted drivers: moving to an(other) existing platform might
>> simplify some aspects of that - the HW qual is already done. Drivers
>> may still be an issue, especially if the vendor likes to provide their
>> own drivers (hello Adaptec, how ya doing?).
>>
>> It surely wouldn't trivial, but the only showstopper I'm seeing so far
>> is time and/or money, rather than lawyers, patents, licences, etc.
>> It'd have to be a lot more commercially plausible than something like
>> FreeVMS.
>
> There are certainly solutions.
>
> But I think it is important to define what you mean by VMS!
>
> Do you want DCL and all LIB$/SYS$ functions?

Yes

> Do you want VMS internals, RMS, driver compatibility, same
> compilers, same debugger etc.?

Yes as appropriate, Yes, as required, big Yes, don't know

> Arne
>
>

Basically, you want to be able to take most applications and put them on
the ported OS and they should compile and run.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 8:58 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/8/2013 4:44 PM, John Wallace wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 8:53 pm, "Craig A. Berry" <***@mac.com.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
>>>>> Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>>> "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>>>>
>>>>> Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
>>>>> Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
>>>>> examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
>>>>> Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.
>>>>
>>>> CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS. Even
>>>> just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
>>>> notices could be a fair chunk of work.
>>>>
>>>> The SSH implementation is from a third party. I *think* it is the
>>>> folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that. The
>>>> as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
>>>> probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process Software
>>>> for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of course), or
>>>> could port OpenSSH.
>>>>
>>>> The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM. I assume
>>>> HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
>>>> various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium. I have no
>>>> idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.
>>>>
>>>> There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them. I
>>>> remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
>>>> Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
>>>> firmware identifying it as such. SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
>>>> an unsupported warning and refused to use it. I was told money had
>>>> changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
>>>> restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
>>>> I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
>>>> non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.
>>>>
>>>> There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
>>>> dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK. I think one of the open questions
>>>> is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or proprietary but
>>>> could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the architectures on
>>>> which VMS runs.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
>>>> work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did release
>>>> everything it had the power to release.
>>>
>>> OK, let's look at these as a (good) start.
>>>
>>> GPL CDE not the same as in VMS: true. Does it matter given that (a)
>>> VMS is seen as a server OS (b) GPL CDE is presumably (!) relatively
>>> clean (eg 32bit safe AND 64bit safe, but possibly not yet VMS-ready).
>>> Probably not a showstopper, yes?
>>>
>>> SSH: fair comment. Options are available, effort (or finance) would
>>> indeed be required. How much? I have little idea, others round here
>>> might make better guesses.
>>>
>>> IA64 compiler: moving to an existing non-IA64 platform might perhaps
>>> be a bright idea at this point. How much work would be required to
>>> make its existing compiler work in the VMS environment with the VMS
>>> tools (compiler, debugger, etc)? Would VMS Debug be mandatory or would
>>> something layered on e.g. gdb be acceptable (either long term or
>>> interim)?
>>>
>>> Vendor-restricted drivers: moving to an(other) existing platform might
>>> simplify some aspects of that - the HW qual is already done. Drivers
>>> may still be an issue, especially if the vendor likes to provide their
>>> own drivers (hello Adaptec, how ya doing?).
>>>
>>> It surely wouldn't trivial, but the only showstopper I'm seeing so far
>>> is time and/or money, rather than lawyers, patents, licences, etc.
>>> It'd have to be a lot more commercially plausible than something like
>>> FreeVMS.
>>
>> There are certainly solutions.
>>
>> But I think it is important to define what you mean by VMS!
>>
>> Do you want DCL and all LIB$/SYS$ functions?
>
> Yes
>
>> Do you want VMS internals, RMS, driver compatibility, same
>> compilers, same debugger etc.?
>
> Yes as appropriate, Yes, as required, big Yes, don't know

> Basically, you want to be able to take most applications and put them on
> the ported OS and they should compile and run.

I think that is require for it to be VMS.

But then one can forget about all the shortcuts of using GCC, GDB
mach kernel etc..

Arne

[David Froble]

John Wallace wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:53 pm, "Craig A. Berry" <***@mac.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>> In article
>> <a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
>>> Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>> "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>>> Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
>>> Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
>>> examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
>>> Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.
>> CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS. Even
>> just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
>> notices could be a fair chunk of work.
>>
>> The SSH implementation is from a third party. I *think* it is the
>> folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that. The
>> as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
>> probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process Software
>> for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of course), or
>> could port OpenSSH.
>>
>> The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM. I assume
>> HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
>> various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium. I have no
>> idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.
>>
>> There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them. I
>> remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
>> Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
>> firmware identifying it as such. SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
>> an unsupported warning and refused to use it. I was told money had
>> changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
>> restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
>> I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
>> non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.
>>
>> There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
>> dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK. I think one of the open questions
>> is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or proprietary but
>> could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the architectures on
>> which VMS runs.
>>
>> I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
>> work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did release
>> everything it had the power to release.
>
> OK, let's look at these as a (good) start.
>
> GPL CDE not the same as in VMS: true. Does it matter given that (a)
> VMS is seen as a server OS (b) GPL CDE is presumably (!) relatively
> clean (eg 32bit safe AND 64bit safe, but possibly not yet VMS-ready).
> Probably not a showstopper, yes?
>
> SSH: fair comment. Options are available, effort (or finance) would
> indeed be required. How much? I have little idea, others round here
> might make better guesses.
>
> IA64 compiler: moving to an existing non-IA64 platform might perhaps
> be a bright idea at this point. How much work would be required to
> make its existing compiler work in the VMS environment with the VMS
> tools (compiler, debugger, etc)? Would VMS Debug be mandatory or would
> something layered on e.g. gdb be acceptable (either long term or
> interim)?
>
> Vendor-restricted drivers: moving to an(other) existing platform might
> simplify some aspects of that - the HW qual is already done. Drivers
> may still be an issue, especially if the vendor likes to provide their
> own drivers (hello Adaptec, how ya doing?).
>
> It surely wouldn't trivial, but the only showstopper I'm seeing so far
> is time and/or money, rather than lawyers, patents, licences, etc.
> It'd have to be a lot more commercially plausible than something like
> FreeVMS.
>
>
>

The biggest show stopper right now is HP.

As for Process software, what happens to their VMS business if VMS goes
away? I'd think that Process Software would be a prime candidate for
any consortium.

[David Froble]

Craig A. Berry wrote:
> In article
> <a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
>> Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
>> "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>>
>> Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
>> Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
>> examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
>> Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.
>
> CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS. Even
> just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
> notices could be a fair chunk of work.
>
> The SSH implementation is from a third party. I *think* it is the
> folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that. The
> as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
> probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process Software
> for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of course), or
> could port OpenSSH.
>
> The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM. I assume
> HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
> various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium. I have no
> idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.
>
> There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them. I
> remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
> Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
> firmware identifying it as such. SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
> an unsupported warning and refused to use it. I was told money had
> changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
> restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
> I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
> non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.
>
> There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
> dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK. I think one of the open questions
> is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or proprietary but
> could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the architectures on
> which VMS runs.
>
> I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
> work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did release
> everything it had the power to release.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and even such have disagreements. But the VMS
sources have been sold, and given away, in the past. Maybe not all, but
so what. So if HP makes the sources available, and just says "there's
proprietary stuff in there, and it's your responsibility to observe it"
then HP doesn't have to vet anything and that argument goes away. All
HP would be doing is allowing others to use what's in the sources, at
their own risk.

If VMS will continue to use IA-64, that's sales for Intel, and if they
don't support such, then forget about IA-64.

If VMS is to be ported to x86, the drivers are where much of the work
will occur, and any old stuff can be omitted from new versions.

Since there will be no new Alpha sales, the people with Alphas, (and
VAXs) already have their license. Providing them with new device
drivers, for example, should not cause any licensing problems. Not
saying that must be done. One of the major problems with users with old
hardware is new devices. S-ATA disks and such. There is also failing
HW. But, let's not take too big of a bite. The OS is one thing, HW is
another.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 8:53 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> In article
>> <a01fed41-53b2-4154-b01e-***@fy4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> John Wallace <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 6:37 pm, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-
>>> Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>>> "AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish"
>>>
>>> Commonly repeated, was certainly true in the past (e.g. Display
>>> Postscript? CDE?), but last time I asked here for relevant current
>>> examples, none were forthcoming. In the case of those two examples,
>>> Display Postscript is now irrelevant and CDE is now GPL.
>>
>> CDE may now be GPL, but the GPL version is not what's in VMS. Even
>> just updating all the code headers with new copyright and license
>> notices could be a fair chunk of work.
>>
>> The SSH implementation is from a third party. I *think* it is the
>> folks at <http://www.ssh.com> but I'm not 100% sure about that. The
>> as-yet-mythical consortium or spin-off company or whatever could
>> probably buy the same rights HP has, or could approach Process
>> Software for inclusion of their SSH product (at a fair price, of
>> course), or could port OpenSSH.
>>
>> The C++ compiler for Itanium has an Intel back-end, not GEM. I assume
>> HP paid money to Intel for it, or perhaps it was code-pro-quo in the
>> various agreements between HP and Intel involving Itanium. I have no
>> idea what transferring those rights to another party would involve.
>> There have been various device drivers with poison pills in them. I
>> remember having an LSI Logic SCSI HBA that was identical to the
>> Compaq-branded one (KZPCA?) except for the magic mumbo-jumbo in the
>> firmware identifying it as such. SRM recognized it, but VMS spat out
>> an unsupported warning and refused to use it. I was told money had
>> changed hands to gain porting assistance for the driver and the
>> restriction to officially-supported widgets was part of the agreement.
>> I've always assumed there were other drivers that had similar
>> non-HP-owned bits in them, but this is the only one I know about.
>>
>> There are discussions already under way to replace the (now somewhat
>> dated) Sun/Oracle Java with OpenJDK. I think one of the open
>> questions is whether there is a suitable non-proprietary (or
>> proprietary but could be open-sourced) JIT compiler available for the
>> architectures on which VMS runs.
>>
>> I doubt this is an exhaustive list but it's an indication of how much
>> work there would be just to return to status quo even if HP did
>> release everything it had the power to release.
>
> Well, I'm not a lawyer, and even such have disagreements. But the VMS
> sources have been sold, and given away, in the past. Maybe not all, but
> so what. So if HP makes the sources available, and just says "there's
> proprietary stuff in there, and it's your responsibility to observe it"
> then HP doesn't have to vet anything and that argument goes away. All
> HP would be doing is allowing others to use what's in the sources, at
> their own risk.

Releasing most code to be viewed and releasing all code to be
modified, build and distributed are two very different things.

This is not just a theory - there were a well known example of
SUN wanting to release Java as open source (OpenJDK). They had
already shared most of the code under a readonly license. But it
took them years to do so and they had to replace certain parts
that they could simply not open source.

Arne

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2013-06-08 20:19, John Wallace wrote:

[...]

> In the case of the PDP11 OSes, the picture was/is complicated by the
> presence of a previous commercial deal with a third party to provide
> ongoing development, support, maintenance etc of the PDP11 (hw and
> sw). Afaik, no such deal exists for the VMS business.

Uh. Well yes, but is the other way around. DEC sold the PDP-11 software
to Mentec, but retained control over the spreading of the software. That
is, the third party (who supposedly owns the software) cannot do as it
wishes with it, without the approval from HP.

> Also wrt PDP11s vs the VMS picture, there was only one real supplier
> of PDP11s, and as such any group attempting a port and then attempting
> to attract ongoing customers (not just tinkerers) would have to absorb
> the full costs of chip and system design, testing, qualification, etc.
> And the customers in general were on the way out.

No. There are way more manufacturers of PDP-11s, some are even still in
business. (See www.quickware.com for example)

> On the other hand, VMS still has customers, for now. With a port of
> VMS to a suitable choice of readily available non-IA64 server, the
> basic hardware would already be designed, tested, qualified, supported
> off the back of some other OS, ideally with a hardware break/fix
> organisation already in place. So just the OS to look after. How hard
> can it be :)

RSX still have customers. I know of several sites running that in
production. However, doing a new release at this point is difficult.

> Still think the odds are against VMS source being released, but let's
> see what the facts currently are, not what they used to be.

One reason for RSX software being hold hostage is that you can trace
some heritage to VMS in there, which is one issue I bet DEC had with
letting RSX loose without control back in 1994. Today that feels like a
moot point, but the contract does not change because of that. And try
finding anyone at HP today who understands, or even cares... Let alone
getting someone to commit to such a change in an existing contract.

Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: ***@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 6/8/2013 1:37 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>>
>>> What's your second choice?
>>
>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary. You don't gain anything but goodwill
>> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>
> AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish.
>
> According to various postings over the years, there's also third party code
> in the VMS code base.
>
> Even if there isn't, someone within HP has to make the decision to do
> the release and to spend money auditing the code to make sure it's ok
> to be released.
>
> If HP have not made the various PDP-11 operating system code bases freely
> available after all this time in spite of multiple requests from people,
> then imagine how unlikely it is that someone will do that for VMS.
>
> Simon.
>

VMS makes use of LICENSED Intellectual Property; e.g. VMS makes use of
patented technology, and Copyrights. DEC licensed this IP many years
ago from the owners. H-P must pay royalties for the use of this IP!

[John Wallace]

On Jun 8, 8:57 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 1:37 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Howard S Shubs  <***@shubs.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>
> >>> What's your second choice?
>
> >> Release the source code under GNU.  If you're not making any money off of it,
> >> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.  You don't gain anything but goodwill
> >> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>
> > AIUI, not all the source code in VMS is HP's to do with as they wish.
>
> > According to various postings over the years, there's also third party code
> > in the VMS code base.
>
> > Even if there isn't, someone within HP has to make the decision to do
> > the release and to spend money auditing the code to make sure it's ok
> > to be released.
>
> > If HP have not made the various PDP-11 operating system code bases freely
> > available after all this time in spite of multiple requests from people,
> > then imagine how unlikely it is that someone will do that for VMS.
>
> > Simon.
>
> VMS makes use of LICENSED Intellectual Property; e.g. VMS makes use of
> patented technology, and Copyrights.  DEC licensed this IP many years
> ago from the owners.  H-P must pay royalties for the use of this IP!

Can you provide sensible examples (like Craig just did, which I will
address in a moment)?

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Richard B. Gilbert <***@comcast.net> wrote:

(snip)
> VMS makes use of LICENSED Intellectual Property; e.g. VMS makes use of
> patented technology, and Copyrights. DEC licensed this IP many years
> ago from the owners. H-P must pay royalties for the use of this IP!

Well, the patents may have expired by now, though not the copyrights.

-- glen

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 4:30 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> VMS makes use of LICENSED Intellectual Property; e.g. VMS makes use of
>> patented technology, and Copyrights. DEC licensed this IP many years
>> ago from the owners. H-P must pay royalties for the use of this IP!
>
> Well, the patents may have expired by now, though not the copyrights.

Patents is only 20 years, so everything from before 1993 can not
have patent problems. So everything that was done for VAX should
be fine.

But copyrights is probably the main problem as software patents
was not as widely used as today when most of VMS were developed.

Arne

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 6/8/2013 4:30 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> VMS makes use of LICENSED Intellectual Property; e.g. VMS makes use of
>> patented technology, and Copyrights. DEC licensed this IP many years
>> ago from the owners. H-P must pay royalties for the use of this IP!
>
> Well, the patents may have expired by now, though not the copyrights.
>
> -- glen
>

The Patents are good for something like 17 years and can be renewed
once. Copyright is something like Fifty Years or the life of the
author, whichever is greater.

If you are facing an intellectual property problem, seek professional
help! If you publish IP without permission, you may be required to pay
a substantial judgement against you!

To give you an idea how a judgement MIGHT get, J.K. Rowling's "Harry
Potter" novels grossed over four billion U.S. dollars! I wish I could
write something like that. Which among you would like that sort of
income? :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard B. Gilbert <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>VMS makes use of LICENSED Intellectual Property; e.g. VMS makes use of
>patented technology, and Copyrights. DEC licensed this IP many years
>ago from the owners. H-P must pay royalties for the use of this IP!

And how many of those patents are still valid?

I guarantee that VMS 4.7, for instance, has absolutely zero entailed
technology today.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>>In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>
>>What's your second choice?
>
> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.

Tell that to Mentec.

> You don't gain anything but goodwill
> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.


That's for the lawyers to decide. If there is stuff inside RT-11,
RSTS/E and RSX-11 that precludes it being released under any form
of open source license, what do you really think the odds are for
VMS?

bill

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>>
>>>What's your second choice?
>>
>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>
>Tell that to Mentec.

I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?

>> You don't gain anything but goodwill
>> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>
>
>That's for the lawyers to decide. If there is stuff inside RT-11,
>RSTS/E and RSX-11 that precludes it being released under any form
>of open source license, what do you really think the odds are for
>VMS?

I dunno, having seen RT-11 source many years ago, I can't think of anything
in there that should be a problem other than whatever Mentec agreement may
still exist.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>
>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>
>>Tell that to Mentec.
>
> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>

Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
activity from this someone.

I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
would still need HP support for it.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[Scott Dorsey]

Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>>
>>>Tell that to Mentec.
>>
>> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
>> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>
>Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
>someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
>activity from this someone.

Who is it, and will they accept the Mentec support contract?

>I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
>have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
>so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
>would still need HP support for it.

I believe that HP owns all of the rights, they have just permitted Mentec
to handle licensing and support under contract.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2013-06-08 23:43, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>> On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>>>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to Mentec.
>>>
>>> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
>>> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>>
>> Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
>> someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
>> activity from this someone.
>
> Who is it, and will they accept the Mentec support contract?

If you seriously want to, I can certainly try to figure it out. Contact
me off list.

>> I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
>> have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
>> so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
>> would still need HP support for it.
>
> I believe that HP owns all of the rights, they have just permitted Mentec
> to handle licensing and support under contract.

Not exactly. The software was sold to Mentec, but DEC has the final say
on any changes in the conditions of distribution, or even further
distribution beyond the owner, if I remember right. I can try and get
more specifics, but it is not trivial for me, since I just sit on the
edge and head and see some parts.

Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: ***@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kp01rs$va9$***@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
> On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>>
>>>Tell that to Mentec.
>>
>> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
>> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>>
>
> Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
> someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
> activity from this someone.
>
> I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
> have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
> so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
> would still need HP support for it.

Just take a look at how other pieces of software have fared.

Even with multiple versions of software that emulate real Unix
perfectly the only real Unix that has been released at the
source level is Version 7 and earlier. (That's why there is not
and never will be a hobbyist program for Ultrix-32.)

How about UCSD-Pascal? Anybody care to venture a guess at its age?
How many commercial installs do you think are still out there? Nothing
newer than Version II has been released. And I doubt anyone here will
live long enough to ever see Version IV set free.

bill

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 8:18 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <kp01rs$va9$***@dont-email.me>,
> Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>> In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>>>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>>>
>>>> Tell that to Mentec.
>>>
>>> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
>>> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
>> someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
>> activity from this someone.
>>
>> I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
>> have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
>> so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
>> would still need HP support for it.
>
> Just take a look at how other pieces of software have fared.
>
> Even with multiple versions of software that emulate real Unix
> perfectly the only real Unix that has been released at the
> source level is Version 7 and earlier. (That's why there is not
> and never will be a hobbyist program for Ultrix-32.)

Why do you not consider FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD to be real Unix?

Because they lack the certification?

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <51b3d869$0$32112$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
Arne Vajhøj <***@vajhoej.dk> writes:
> On 6/8/2013 8:18 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <kp01rs$va9$***@dont-email.me>,
>> Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>> On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>>> In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>>>>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>>>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell that to Mentec.
>>>>
>>>> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
>>>> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
>>> someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
>>> activity from this someone.
>>>
>>> I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
>>> have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
>>> so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
>>> would still need HP support for it.
>>
>> Just take a look at how other pieces of software have fared.
>>
>> Even with multiple versions of software that emulate real Unix
>> perfectly the only real Unix that has been released at the
>> source level is Version 7 and earlier. (That's why there is not
>> and never will be a hobbyist program for Ultrix-32.)
>
> Why do you not consider FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD to be real Unix?
>
> Because they lack the certification?
>

That's what I have been told. Why do you think FreeBSD isn't called
FreeBSD Unix?

bill

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/9/2013 12:23 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <51b3d869$0$32112$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Arne Vajhøj <***@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> On 6/8/2013 8:18 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article <kp01rs$va9$***@dont-email.me>,
>>> Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>>> On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>>>>>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>>>>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell that to Mentec.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
>>>>> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
>>>> someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
>>>> activity from this someone.
>>>>
>>>> I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
>>>> have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
>>>> so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
>>>> would still need HP support for it.
>>>
>>> Just take a look at how other pieces of software have fared.
>>>
>>> Even with multiple versions of software that emulate real Unix
>>> perfectly the only real Unix that has been released at the
>>> source level is Version 7 and earlier. (That's why there is not
>>> and never will be a hobbyist program for Ultrix-32.)
>>
>> Why do you not consider FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD to be real Unix?
>>
>> Because they lack the certification?
>>
>
> That's what I have been told. Why do you think FreeBSD isn't called
> FreeBSD Unix?

Because they have not paid for the certification and therefore
does not have the right to call it Unix.

But version 7 was not certified as Unix either, because at the time
there were no certification.

The closest to certified and open sources is probably Darwin. MacOS X
is certified and I don' think any of the extra stuff in MacOS X is
required for UNIX certification.

Arne

[Scott Dorsey]

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <***@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>On 6/9/2013 12:23 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> That's what I have been told. Why do you think FreeBSD isn't called
>> FreeBSD Unix?
>
>Because they have not paid for the certification and therefore
>does not have the right to call it Unix.

Certification? If it contains v7 code, it's Unix. If it doesn't contain
v7 code, it's not Unix.

Ultrix-32 is really 4.2BSD with bugs added. 4.2BSD is based roughly on V/32,
which is a 32-bit port of SysV.

Unix is a trademark of AT&T. If AT&T says it's Unix, it's Unix. BSD is
a trademark of the Regents of the University of California.

>But version 7 was not certified as Unix either, because at the time
>there were no certification.

It's Unix, it says so on in the headers of all the source code. The
manual has building blocks with the letters U-N-I-X on the cover. Looks
like Unix.

>The closest to certified and open sources is probably Darwin. MacOS X
>is certified and I don' think any of the extra stuff in MacOS X is
>required for UNIX certification.

MacOS X passes the duck test for Unix, although it's got some pretty bizarre
stuff in there and the kernel bears little connection to that of V7.....

What is this certification? What do you do to get certified? Do they put
you in a straightjacket and make you use ed in line mode?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Ultrix-32 is really 4.2BSD with bugs added. 4.2BSD is based roughly on V/32,
>which is a 32-bit port of SysV.

aargh... 32-bit port of v7. That will teach me to proofread.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JF Mezei]

On 13-06-09 13:59, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Unix is a trademark of AT&T. If AT&T says it's Unix, it's Unix. BSD is
> a trademark of the Regents of the University of California.

Which AT&T would hold the patents/copyright/whatever today ?

Was this the Bell Labs part which morphed into Lucent, failed and
bought by Alcatel ?

Or was it the AT&T telephone company which divested of much of its
stuff, and the surviving part was purchased by one of its former "sons"
(Bell South which also owned Cingular who bought AT&T Wireless) ?

It seems to me that the market has decided on Linux and Darwin as mass
market unixes (darwin also runs IOS devices) with the few remaining
commercial Unixes ( AIX, Solaris, HP-UX) not really a big thing anymore.

Note: Darwin is a souped up FreeBSD.

[John Wallace]

On Jun 9, 7:31 pm, JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-06-09 13:59, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > Unix is a trademark of AT&T.  If AT&T says it's Unix, it's Unix.  BSD is
> > a trademark of the Regents of the University of California.
>
> Which AT&T would hold the patents/copyright/whatever today ?
>
> Was this the  Bell Labs part which morphed into Lucent, failed and
> bought by Alcatel ?
>
> Or was it the AT&T telephone company which divested of much of its
> stuff, and the surviving part was purchased by one of its former "sons"
> (Bell South which also owned Cingular who bought AT&T Wireless) ?
>
> It seems to me that the market has decided on Linux and Darwin as mass
> market unixes (darwin also runs IOS devices) with  the few remaining
> commercial Unixes ( AIX, Solaris, HP-UX) not really a big thing anymore.
>
> Note: Darwin is a souped up FreeBSD.

UNIX hasn't actually been a trademark of AT&T for quite some time.

NetBSD has a nice short writeup at http://www.netbsd.org/about/call-it-a-duck.html

Wikipedia's UNIX article has a longer writeup, including the text "The
Open Group, an industry standards consortium, now owns the UNIX
trademark. Only systems fully compliant with and certified according
to the Single UNIX Specification are qualified to use the trademark;
others might be called Unix system-like or Unix-like, although the
Open Group disapproves[2] of this term. However, the term Unix is
often used informally to denote any operating system that closely
resembles the trademarked system." There's also an article on "UNIX-
like", covering some of the same territory.

The Open Group has its own UNIX trademark-related page at
http://www.unix.org/trademark.html

IP lawyers. Where would we be without them?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/9/2013 1:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <***@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 6/9/2013 12:23 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> That's what I have been told. Why do you think FreeBSD isn't called
>>> FreeBSD Unix?
>>
>> Because they have not paid for the certification and therefore
>> does not have the right to call it Unix.
>
> Certification? If it contains v7 code, it's Unix. If it doesn't contain
> v7 code, it's not Unix.

That is not the definition used in the industry.

> Ultrix-32 is really 4.2BSD with bugs added. 4.2BSD is based roughly on V/32,
> which is a 32-bit port of SysV.
>
> Unix is a trademark of AT&T. If AT&T says it's Unix, it's Unix. BSD is
> a trademark of the Regents of the University of California.

Check the calendar - it says 2013.

AT&T sold the trademark to Novell and in 1993 Novell transferred the
rights to X/Open group in 1993.

That is only 20 years ago.

X/Open group was merged with OSF into OpenGroup in 1996.

>> But version 7 was not certified as Unix either, because at the time
>> there were no certification.
>
> It's Unix, it says so on in the headers of all the source code. The
> manual has building blocks with the letters U-N-I-X on the cover. Looks
> like Unix.

That is also a possible criteria.

But by that definition there are plenty of open source Unix'es around.

>> The closest to certified and open sources is probably Darwin. MacOS X
>> is certified and I don' think any of the extra stuff in MacOS X is
>> required for UNIX certification.
>
> MacOS X passes the duck test for Unix, although it's got some pretty bizarre
> stuff in there and the kernel bears little connection to that of V7.....
>
> What is this certification? What do you do to get certified? Do they put
> you in a straightjacket and make you use ed in line mode?

The OS need to pass OpenGroup's test suite for the particular version
(today it is typical SUSv3 even though SUSv4 is out).

Arne

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2013-06-09 17:59:35 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:

> Certification? If it contains v7 code, it's Unix. If it doesn't
> contain v7 code, it's not Unix.

The Open Group now determines what systems can be called Unix, and the
certification process is based on compliance with the published
standards and not on the presence or absence of v7 code.

> Unix is a trademark of AT&T. If AT&T says it's Unix, it's Unix.

The Open Group holds the Unix trademark now. Has for some years, too.

<http://www.opengroup.org/content/legal-trademark-guidelines>

> What is this certification? What do you do to get certified?

<http://www.opengroup.org/certification/idx/unix.html>

> Do they put you in a straightjacket and make you use ed in line mode?

No, but I'm pretty sure it involves reading comp.os.vms postings. :-)


--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
***@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> In article <kp01rs$va9$***@dont-email.me>,
> Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
> > On 2013-06-08, Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
> >> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
> >>>In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
> >>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> >>>>
> >>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off
> >>>> of it,
> >>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
> >>>
> >>>Tell that to Mentec.
> >>
> >> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
> >> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, they are history, but according to postings in the PDP-11 newsgroups
> > someone has taken over the rights from Mentec, but I have yet to see any
> > activity from this someone.
> >
> > I also have the impression from when I've asked about this that HP still
> > have some control rights over the PDP-11 OS and layered products software,
> > so even if this person wanted to open source the PDP-11 software, they
> > would still need HP support for it.
>
> Just take a look at how other pieces of software have fared.

When I first started posting the IBM 1130 Functional Characteristics
manual back in 1997(? 1998), I got a note from IBM to stop. I waited a
few years, and completed the task, expecting a followup from IBM, which
I could discuss with them. I've received no further communications from
IBM. You pays yer money and you takes yer chances.

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2013-06-08 21:44, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>> In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>>>
>>>> What's your second choice?
>>>
>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>
>> Tell that to Mentec.
>
> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?

They have.

Ownership of the PDP-11 OSes is now with another company. Still with a
strangle hold from HP.

>>> You don't gain anything but goodwill
>>> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>>
>>
>> That's for the lawyers to decide. If there is stuff inside RT-11,
>> RSTS/E and RSX-11 that precludes it being released under any form
>> of open source license, what do you really think the odds are for
>> VMS?
>
> I dunno, having seen RT-11 source many years ago, I can't think of anything
> in there that should be a problem other than whatever Mentec agreement may
> still exist.

The original agreement between DEC and Mentec is still in place, even
though both parties have been replaced.

Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: ***@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kp01iv$p1i$***@panix2.panix.com>,
***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>>>
>>>>What's your second choice?
>>>
>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>
>>Tell that to Mentec.
>
> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?

They are. But attempts were made to get some kind of opening of the
software (most would have been happy with binary but some of us were
interested in source as well). It went nowhere. Further attempts
were made with the people who bought all of Mentec's pieces of the
PDP-11 IP. No change there. Most of us have assumed by this point
that all of the old PDP-11 IP is destined for the shredder.

>
>>> You don't gain anything but goodwill
>>> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>>
>>
>>That's for the lawyers to decide. If there is stuff inside RT-11,
>>RSTS/E and RSX-11 that precludes it being released under any form
>>of open source license, what do you really think the odds are for
>>VMS?
>
> I dunno, having seen RT-11 source many years ago, I can't think of anything
> in there that should be a problem other than whatever Mentec agreement may
> still exist.

So release it. See how long before you have lawyers knocking at your
door. :-)


bill

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

[David Froble]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <kp01iv$p1i$***@panix2.panix.com>,
> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>> Bill Gunshannon <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>>> ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>>>> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>>>> What's your second choice?
>>>> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
>>>> there's no reason to keep it proprietary.
>>> Tell that to Mentec.
>> I thought Mentec was gone? We paid them for support and then they didn't
>> answer their phones when we called. I thought they had shut down?
>
> They are. But attempts were made to get some kind of opening of the
> software (most would have been happy with binary but some of us were
> interested in source as well). It went nowhere. Further attempts
> were made with the people who bought all of Mentec's pieces of the
> PDP-11 IP. No change there. Most of us have assumed by this point
> that all of the old PDP-11 IP is destined for the shredder.
>
>>>> You don't gain anything but goodwill
>>>> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>>>
>>> That's for the lawyers to decide. If there is stuff inside RT-11,
>>> RSTS/E and RSX-11 that precludes it being released under any form
>>> of open source license, what do you really think the odds are for
>>> VMS?
>> I dunno, having seen RT-11 source many years ago, I can't think of anything
>> in there that should be a problem other than whatever Mentec agreement may
>> still exist.
>
> So release it. See how long before you have lawyers knocking at your
> door. :-)

Lawyers only knock on your door if:

1) they are being paid to do so

2) they see some money they can go after

So, what's there that would get anyone to pay a lawyer ?

Don't see no money available. So they take the rights to VMS? What are
they going to do with it? Support it? :-) Sell it for a quarter?

I have a legal problem. I mfg some aircraft parts. About the time some
lawyer comes up the driveway, I'll show him $500 in raw materials and
$500 in the bank, both of which would be long gone before any case goes
to court. If one ever does show up, I'm betting he'll tear up the
driveway at the speed he'll probably be leaving ....

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2013-06-08 18:49, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>
>> What's your second choice?
>
> Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of it,
> there's no reason to keep it proprietary. You don't gain anything but goodwill
> from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.

It is not that simple. You have to take into consideration what such
effect might have on your own future sales.

If you release VMS to the public, a bunch of people will probably stay
with VMS instead of porting. There might even be another company that
picks up the pieces and offers support, starting to compete with you.

That means actual money not earned, that you might otherwise have made.
So releasing the software can definitely hurt HP. Not to mention that
some bits and pieces (like compilers) might be picked up and ported
around to other platforms, loosing you even more sales.
Crazy stuff, yes, but not unimaginable.

Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: ***@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

[Paul Sture]

In article <kp0amh$18o$***@Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>,
Johnny Billquist <***@softjar.se> wrote:

> On 2013-06-08 18:49, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Howard S Shubs <***@shubs.net> wrote:
> >> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
> >>
> >> What's your second choice?
> >
> > Release the source code under GNU. If you're not making any money off of
> > it,
> > there's no reason to keep it proprietary. You don't gain anything but
> > goodwill
> > from releasing it, but you don't lose anything either.
>
> It is not that simple. You have to take into consideration what such
> effect might have on your own future sales.
>
> If you release VMS to the public, a bunch of people will probably stay
> with VMS instead of porting. There might even be another company that
> picks up the pieces and offers support, starting to compete with you.
>
> That means actual money not earned, that you might otherwise have made.
> So releasing the software can definitely hurt HP. Not to mention that
> some bits and pieces (like compilers) might be picked up and ported
> around to other platforms, loosing you even more sales.
> Crazy stuff, yes, but not unimaginable.

Indeed. There are plenty of examples of companies being bought to
eliminate competition, with the result that perfectly good products
(sometimes superior ones) are withdrawn from the market.

--
Paul Sture

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <kovnam$6jh$***@panix2.panix.com>, ***@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) writes:

> Release the source code under GNU.

While I doubt that open-sourcing VMS will secure its future, if this
does happen, perhaps it could be done avoiding any mention of "GNU".
Keep in mind that RMS has been rallying against proprietary operating
systems like VMS for decades. He said it is a "crime against
humanity" (his words) to sell executables without source code. While he
is free to do whatever he likes with his own code, I have no sympathy
for insulting people who see the world differently.

If you want to learn about fascism, read up on "GNU philosophy". It's
not just "we are better than the rest" but "we will destroy the rest,
because they are inferior". Sickening.

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <kp1bb8$5lc$***@online.de>,
***@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply)
wrote:

> While I doubt that open-sourcing VMS will secure its future, if this
> does happen, perhaps it could be done avoiding any mention of "GNU".

GNU VMS? :-o RMS from RMS?

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?

At one level, not much. I've rarely had current hardware, what I've had
has always been good enough, and the gap between what I need and what I
have has increased with time (in other words, I have more reserves now).
Until recently, I had VAXen in my cluster, which were almost 25 years
old in some cases. My current hardware is a bit more than 10 years old,
so there should be no problem at all for another 15 and, considering I
have more reserves, maybe another 25.

I'll continue to use VMS for what I've been using it for. If there is
something I can't do on VMS, I'll have to look for another solution. In
some cases, it could be something I can do on another machine where I
have an account. I might even consider buying some non-VMS hardware
(see below). However, I doubt that enough things I can't do on VMS will
come along so that I think a full-scale port is worth the effort.

By sticking around on VMS as long as possible, I might have to switch
only once in my life. If I switch now, hopefully I will live long
enough that switching again might be necessary. I would rather switch
once than more than once.

Very probably 8.4.X will be the last version of VMS. It will thus be
worth making things work on the latest version, rather than hoping that
a new version will fix things.

I think I should stick with ALPHA and not go to Itanium. Itanium won't
even get me a newer version of VMS. I probably won't need the increased
power. There are probably no Itanium machines (at least, available for
little or no money) which use less power than the ALPHAs I am using now.
I doubt I could get enough Itanium machines and peripherals to last me
the rest of my life (at least for what I am willing to invest). Thus, I
will probably try to get a few more spare parts. (I had always had
moving to Itanium in the back of my mind when used stuff became readily
and cheaply available).

If I do move to some other platform, what should it be? Windows? I
don't like the interface, I don't like the fact that new versions often
have change for the sake of change, I don't like the fact that it is
virus-prone (which is not only due to the fact that it is common).
GNU/Linux? Probably the one thing I agree with RMS on is that one
should call these systems GNU/Linux and not Linux. But Stallman's
influence is strong and after decades of using a proprietary OS I can't
see myself moving to GNU stuff when RMS claims that proprietary OS's are
a crime against humanity (he actually used those words). Unix is of
course a command-line OS like VMS and the constant comparison would make
me miss VMS even more. Apple? It is like DEC in that there is hardware
and software from the same vendor and it is very closed-shop. Also, it
has a reputation for working correctly most of the time. What I really
don't like is the fact that Apple sells censored versions of music and
books (in some cases without even indicating the fact), but I don't have
any plans to use a computer for music (at most, something like the
Brennan JB7) and as for ebooks, if I go that route at all I will wait
until there is some standard format (does anyone even remember what the
competitor to Blu-Ray was called? But for several years it wasn't clear
which one would make it.) Presumably, Apple can be used without the
content-purchasing angle, so that seems the least of 3 evils.
(Obviously, although VMS was once a major player, it has become a niche
operating system, and if I have to move away, then not to another niche
operating system.) I think there are some Apple users here. What do
folks here recommend?

Increasingly, more and more stuff is done via browsers, so a good
browser might be the deciding factor (as long as the underlying OS is
stable).

VMS is stuck at Fortran95. Does anyone know how good Apple's support
for newer Fortran versions is? (I've only run into a couple of cases so
far where I needed something post-95, and in all cases there is a
reasonably simple workaround in pure F95.)

Although publicly available distributions are out of date, presumably it
is technically no problem to run modern versions of LaTeX on VMS---just
a bit more effort required to keep it updated, since a fresh install
from some maintained distribution probably won't be possible.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-06-09, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <***@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?
>
> At one level, not much. I've rarely had current hardware, what I've had
> has always been good enough, and the gap between what I need and what I
> have has increased with time (in other words, I have more reserves now).

Do you have permanent licences or annually renewed ones ?

If annual, what happens if HP terminate the hobbyist program ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[MG]

On 9-jun-2013 15:28, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2013-06-09, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <***@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?
>>
>> At one level, not much. I've rarely had current hardware, what I've had
>> has always been good enough, and the gap between what I need and what I
>> have has increased with time (in other words, I have more reserves now).
>
> Do you have permanent licences or annually renewed ones ?
>
> If annual, what happens if HP terminate the hobbyist program ?

That was something I was wondering about as well, as he was a very
outspoken opponent of things like "LMFGen" (as shared here, several
months/years ago).

- MG

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kp1vtj$ak3$***@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
> On 2013-06-09, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <***@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?
>>
>> At one level, not much. I've rarely had current hardware, what I've had
>> has always been good enough, and the gap between what I need and what I
>> have has increased with time (in other words, I have more reserves now).
>
> Do you have permanent licences or annually renewed ones ?
>
> If annual, what happens if HP terminate the hobbyist program ?

What do you mean "if"? I have said all along that people should be
very careful about building up any reliance on VMS at this point.
For hobbyists they merely pull the plug. Of course, you can continue
to run by setting your date back a year (can't imagine the problems
that would cause). You would be in violation of the license, but I
am sure there are as many people here as there were on the PDP-11
side who don't really care about licenses anyway. On the business
side, if you have "permanent" licenses you really should look at the
fine print as I am sure it says that the license can be terminated
upon written notification from HP. So, the idea that even if HP
truly EOL's VMS people can keep on runing it is not as clear as
people here would have you believe.

bill

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/9/2013 10:57 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <kp1vtj$ak3$***@dont-email.me>,
> Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> On 2013-06-09, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <***@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>>> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?
>>>
>>> At one level, not much. I've rarely had current hardware, what I've had
>>> has always been good enough, and the gap between what I need and what I
>>> have has increased with time (in other words, I have more reserves now).
>>
>> Do you have permanent licences or annually renewed ones ?
>>
>> If annual, what happens if HP terminate the hobbyist program ?
>
> What do you mean "if"? I have said all along that people should be
> very careful about building up any reliance on VMS at this point.

Hobbyist and reliance is somewhat a contradiction.

Arne

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <51b48c04$0$26895$***@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl>, MG
<***@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:

> That was something I was wondering about as well, as he was a very
> outspoken opponent of things like "LMFGen" (as shared here, several
> months/years ago).

Yes, I do oppose theft. I don't still from shops even if I think the
prices are too high.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/9/2013 9:28 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2013-06-09, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply <***@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?
>>
>> At one level, not much. I've rarely had current hardware, what I've had
>> has always been good enough, and the gap between what I need and what I
>> have has increased with time (in other words, I have more reserves now).
>
> Do you have permanent licences or annually renewed ones ?
>
> If annual, what happens if HP terminate the hobbyist program ?

The real hobbyist license is for 1 year.

Arne

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <kp1vtj$ak3$***@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> Do you have permanent licences or annually renewed ones ?

Mostly the latter. I did buy some licenses when I bought a machine new.

> If annual, what happens if HP terminate the hobbyist program ?

That has always been a danger. One can't prepare for every eventuality.
Who knows how long Apple will be a major player? Not that long ago,
Nokia dominated the mobile-phone business, but not anymore.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/9/2013 5:56 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?

I would expect the hobbyist program to be terminated around 31-Dec-2020.

No commercial usage means no resources for hobbyist usage.

> If I do move to some other platform, what should it be? Windows? I
> don't like the interface,

Traditional Windows? Modern UI? PS? (remember Core!)

> I don't like the fact that new versions often
> have change for the sake of change, I don't like the fact that it is
> virus-prone (which is not only due to the fact that it is common).
> GNU/Linux? Probably the one thing I agree with RMS on is that one
> should call these systems GNU/Linux and not Linux. But Stallman's
> influence is strong and after decades of using a proprietary OS I can't
> see myself moving to GNU stuff when RMS claims that proprietary OS's are
> a crime against humanity (he actually used those words).

You may find it difficult to find an OS where no proponent has ever
said something stupid.

> Unix is of
> course a command-line OS like VMS and the constant comparison would make
> me miss VMS even more.

VMS, Unix and Windows all has both GUI and CLI interfaces.

> Apple? It is like DEC in that there is hardware
> and software from the same vendor and it is very closed-shop.

Most of MacOS X is actually open source (Darwin).

> VMS is stuck at Fortran95. Does anyone know how good Apple's support
> for newer Fortran versions is? (I've only run into a couple of cases so
> far where I needed something post-95, and in all cases there is a
> reasonably simple workaround in pure F95.)

GFortran runs on MacOS X.

If "The GFortran compiler is fully compliant with the Fortran 95
Standard and includes legacy F77 support. In addition, a significant
number of Fortran 2003 and Fortran 2008 features are implemented."
is good enough for you.

Arne

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <51b4a903$0$32105$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
Arne Vajhøj <***@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

> You may find it difficult to find an OS where no proponent has ever
> said something stupid.

The best way, IMHO, to deal with RMS, is to speak with the man. I did
so several years ago. I consider him somewhat of a kook. He wants
confirmation for his contributions, but he won't work for money. Most
people get confirmation via money, but he won't, so he doesn't get any
confirmation to speak of.

Torvalds wrote the kernel before Stallman did, and so usually gets the
credit for the whole thing. Calling it GNU/Linux is, perhaps, polite or
considerate, but it's unusual. That must really grind Stallman's balls.


There's a REASON people work for money! He's got to accept that he's
known in tech circles, and that's about all. Heck, that's more than I,
or most people, have. Look what happened when DMR died. And he was a
rather more significant contributor than RMS. Maybe RMS can look
forward to a notable obituary and that his contribution will outlive
him, as DMR's has.

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Howard S Shubs wrote 2013-06-09 19:38:
> In article <51b4a903$0$32105$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Arne Vajhøj <***@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
>> You may find it difficult to find an OS where no proponent has ever
>> said something stupid.
>
> The best way, IMHO, to deal with RMS, is to speak with the man. I did
> so several years ago. I consider him somewhat of a kook. He wants
> confirmation for his contributions, but he won't work for money. Most
> people get confirmation via money, but he won't, so he doesn't get any
> confirmation to speak of.
>
> Torvalds wrote the kernel before Stallman did, and so usually gets the
> credit for the whole thing. Calling it GNU/Linux is, perhaps, polite or
> considerate, but it's unusual. That must really grind Stallman's balls.
>
>
> There's a REASON people work for money! He's got to accept that he's
> known in tech circles, and that's about all. Heck, that's more than I,
> or most people, have. Look what happened when DMR died.

DMR ??


> And he was a
> rather more significant contributor than RMS. Maybe RMS can look
> forward to a notable obituary and that his contribution will outlive
> him, as DMR's has.
>

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2013-06-09 19:47, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Howard S Shubs wrote 2013-06-09 19:38:
>> In article <51b4a903$0$32105$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <***@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> You may find it difficult to find an OS where no proponent has ever
>>> said something stupid.
>>
>> The best way, IMHO, to deal with RMS, is to speak with the man. I did
>> so several years ago. I consider him somewhat of a kook. He wants
>> confirmation for his contributions, but he won't work for money. Most
>> people get confirmation via money, but he won't, so he doesn't get any
>> confirmation to speak of.
>>
>> Torvalds wrote the kernel before Stallman did, and so usually gets the
>> credit for the whole thing. Calling it GNU/Linux is, perhaps, polite or
>> considerate, but it's unusual. That must really grind Stallman's balls.
>>
>>
>> There's a REASON people work for money! He's got to accept that he's
>> known in tech circles, and that's about all. Heck, that's more than I,
>> or most people, have. Look what happened when DMR died.
>
> DMR ??

Dennis Richie. The father of Unix. Died not that long ago...

Apart from that, I totally refuse getting into arguments about Linux vs.
GNU, and the various cults surrounding the people. They are all stupid.

Johnny

--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: ***@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

[V***@SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <kp2f3b$ejt$***@news.albasani.net>, Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-***@telia.com> writes:
>Howard S Shubs wrote 2013-06-09 19:38:
>> In article <51b4a903$0$32105$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
>> Arne Vajhøj <***@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> You may find it difficult to find an OS where no proponent has ever
>>> said something stupid.
>>
>> The best way, IMHO, to deal with RMS, is to speak with the man. I did
>> so several years ago. I consider him somewhat of a kook. He wants
>> confirmation for his contributions, but he won't work for money. Most
>> people get confirmation via money, but he won't, so he doesn't get any
>> confirmation to speak of.
>>
>> Torvalds wrote the kernel before Stallman did, and so usually gets the
>> credit for the whole thing. Calling it GNU/Linux is, perhaps, polite or
>> considerate, but it's unusual. That must really grind Stallman's balls.
>>
>>
>> There's a REASON people work for money! He's got to accept that he's
>> known in tech circles, and that's about all. Heck, that's more than I,
>> or most people, have. Look what happened when DMR died.
>
>DMR ??

DMR: Dennis MacAlistair Ritchie (Unix & C)
RMS: Richard Matthew Stallman (loonix ;) )

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

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <51b4a903$0$32105$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <***@vajhoej.dk> writes:

> I would expect the hobbyist program to be terminated around 31-Dec-2020.
>
> No commercial usage means no resources for hobbyist usage.

??? The overhead to administer the hobbyist program is small change.
Many people would do it for free. I see no connection between
commercial VMS and hobbyist VMS.

> > GNU/Linux? Probably the one thing I agree with RMS on is that one
> > should call these systems GNU/Linux and not Linux. But Stallman's
> > influence is strong and after decades of using a proprietary OS I can't
> > see myself moving to GNU stuff when RMS claims that proprietary OS's are
> > a crime against humanity (he actually used those words).
>
> You may find it difficult to find an OS where no proponent has ever
> said something stupid.

Yes, but in this case it's not some off-the-cuff, and later regretted
remark, but the main philosophy of the main guy.

> > Apple? It is like DEC in that there is hardware
> > and software from the same vendor and it is very closed-shop.
>
> Most of MacOS X is actually open source (Darwin).

Under the hood, yes, but not in practice.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/9/2013 12:58 PM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> In article <51b4a903$0$32105$***@news.sunsite.dk>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <***@vajhoej.dk> writes:
>
>> I would expect the hobbyist program to be terminated around 31-Dec-2020.
>>
>> No commercial usage means no resources for hobbyist usage.
>
> ??? The overhead to administer the hobbyist program is small change.
> Many people would do it for free. I see no connection between
> commercial VMS and hobbyist VMS.

Expecting a company like HP to accept a small overhead is like
expecting rocks to bleed cognac.

>>> GNU/Linux? Probably the one thing I agree with RMS on is that one
>>> should call these systems GNU/Linux and not Linux. But Stallman's
>>> influence is strong and after decades of using a proprietary OS I can't
>>> see myself moving to GNU stuff when RMS claims that proprietary OS's are
>>> a crime against humanity (he actually used those words).
>>
>> You may find it difficult to find an OS where no proponent has ever
>> said something stupid.
>
> Yes, but in this case it's not some off-the-cuff, and later regretted
> remark, but the main philosophy of the main guy.

So being developer on GNU Emacs 1984-2008 and on GCC 1987-1999 makes one
the main guy on Linux? I do not see it that way.

>>> Apple? It is like DEC in that there is hardware
>>> and software from the same vendor and it is very closed-shop.
>>
>> Most of MacOS X is actually open source (Darwin).
>
> Under the hood, yes, but not in practice.

????

For MacOS 10.8.3 you can get it here:

http://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-2050.22.13/

Arne

[JF Mezei]

On 13-06-09 05:56, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?

I would hope that te hobbyist programme would start to issue perpetual
licenses for VMS instead of having o constantly renew them.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <51b4c671$0$58153$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> writes:
> On 13-06-09 05:56, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?
>
> I would hope that te hobbyist programme would start to issue perpetual
> licenses for VMS instead of having o constantly renew them.

I expect the exact opposite. And I seriously doubt they are going to
continue to offer it until after 2020.

bill

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

[JF Mezei]

On 13-06-09 14:27, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> I expect the exact opposite. And I seriously doubt they are going to
> continue to offer it until after 2020.

I seriously doubt that HP will continue to offer VMS hobbysist until
2020. One possibility would be to shift responsibility entirely to the
hobbysist group who would then run it autonomously as long as there is
some interest.

However, at end of sales for Tukwila, there would be abolutely no reason
to say no to perpetual hobbysist licences since there is no way to
cannabalise sales of a product that is no longer on the order books.

[David Froble]

JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-06-09 14:27, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> I expect the exact opposite. And I seriously doubt they are going to
>> continue to offer it until after 2020.
>
> I seriously doubt that HP will continue to offer VMS hobbysist until
> 2020. One possibility would be to shift responsibility entirely to the
> hobbysist group who would then run it autonomously as long as there is
> some interest.
>
> However, at end of sales for Tukwila, there would be abolutely no reason
> to say no to perpetual hobbysist licences since there is no way to
> cannabalise sales of a product that is no longer on the order books.
>
>
>

Perhaps HP will consider the hobbyists as vocal rabble, and want to get
past that quickly, not to let it linger on ....

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/9/2013 2:16 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-06-09 05:56, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
>> What does the VMS EOL mean for me as a hobbyist?
>
> I would hope that te hobbyist programme would start to issue perpetual
> licenses for VMS instead of having o constantly renew them.

Me too.

Arne

[MG]

On 9-jun-2013 9:37, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
> If you want to learn about fascism, read up on "GNU philosophy".

Fascism is corporatist (e.g. for the restoration of the guilds.) So,
wouldn't fascism therefore be more favorable to VMS than GNU's more
collectivist marxist/leninist stance? (As you say yourself.)

- MG

[David Froble]

Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through the
>>> lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio of
>>> servers, software, and solutions, including support for transitions to
>>> NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
>>>
>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>
> What's your second choice?

That VMS be licensed, at zero cost (since that appears to be HP's idea
of it's value) to a consortium which would then do with it's version of
VMS whatever it chooses to do.

High on my list would be a study to see what paths would be long term
viable. Is x86 a viable long term direction? What else.

I'd see those customers who are rather captive on VMS to be approached
for contributions, or actual inclusion into such a consortium. If VMS
has any future value, it would be because of it's usage by such
customers, so they have a vested interest.

Actually, the above would be my FIRST choice, and HP making the
investment my second, or lower, choice.

Dreaming? Perhaps. But, there is Linex ....

[David Froble]

David Froble wrote:
> Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through
>>>> the lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio
>>>> of servers, software, and solutions, including support for
>>>> transitions to NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
>>>>
>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>
>> What's your second choice?
>
> That VMS be licensed, at zero cost (since that appears to be HP's idea
> of it's value) to a consortium which would then do with it's version of
> VMS whatever it chooses to do.
>
> High on my list would be a study to see what paths would be long term
> viable. Is x86 a viable long term direction? What else.
>
> I'd see those customers who are rather captive on VMS to be approached
> for contributions, or actual inclusion into such a consortium. If VMS
> has any future value, it would be because of it's usage by such
> customers, so they have a vested interest.
>
> Actually, the above would be my FIRST choice, and HP making the
> investment my second, or lower, choice.
>
> Dreaming? Perhaps. But, there is Linex ....

Following up on this topic.

It occurs to me that HP's attitude toward VMS and customers that rely it
is similar to the person in charge of the life support equipment in a
hospital that is more worried about the electric bill than the patients.

Do you want to depend upon this person ?????????

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 2:06 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Howard S Shubs wrote:
>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through
>>>> the lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio
>>>> of servers, software, and solutions, including support for
>>>> transitions to NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
>>>>
>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>
>> What's your second choice?
>
> That VMS be licensed, at zero cost (since that appears to be HP's idea
> of it's value) to a consortium which would then do with it's version of
> VMS whatever it chooses to do.
>
> High on my list would be a study to see what paths would be long term
> viable. Is x86 a viable long term direction? What else.
>
> I'd see those customers who are rather captive on VMS to be approached
> for contributions, or actual inclusion into such a consortium. If VMS
> has any future value, it would be because of it's usage by such
> customers, so they have a vested interest.
>
> Actually, the above would be my FIRST choice, and HP making the
> investment my second, or lower, choice.
>
> Dreaming? Perhaps.

If there is no business case for HP, then why do you expect
a business case for somebody else?

Arne

[David Froble]

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/8/2013 2:06 PM, David Froble wrote:
>> Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through
>>>>> the lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio
>>>>> of servers, software, and solutions, including support for
>>>>> transitions to NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
>>>>>
>>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>>
>>> What's your second choice?
>>
>> That VMS be licensed, at zero cost (since that appears to be HP's idea
>> of it's value) to a consortium which would then do with it's version of
>> VMS whatever it chooses to do.
>>
>> High on my list would be a study to see what paths would be long term
>> viable. Is x86 a viable long term direction? What else.
>>
>> I'd see those customers who are rather captive on VMS to be approached
>> for contributions, or actual inclusion into such a consortium. If VMS
>> has any future value, it would be because of it's usage by such
>> customers, so they have a vested interest.
>>
>> Actually, the above would be my FIRST choice, and HP making the
>> investment my second, or lower, choice.
>>
>> Dreaming? Perhaps.
>
> If there is no business case for HP, then why do you expect
> a business case for somebody else?
>
> Arne
>

Because I believe that there just may be a sound business case, but HP
is not interested in such business cases. There is such a thing as
"small business".

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/8/2013 9:07 PM, David Froble wrote:
> Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 6/8/2013 2:06 PM, David Froble wrote:
>>> Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>> In article <75c69871-ffad-46fb-99bb-***@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 9:25:29 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>>> "We will continue to provide a high level of support to you through
>>>>>> the lifetime of your OpenVMS environment. We have a full portfolio
>>>>>> of servers, software, and solutions, including support for
>>>>>> transitions to NonStop, HP-UX, Linux, and Windows environments."
>>>>>>
>>>>> I would rather see them make the investment in OpenVMS!
>>>>
>>>> What's your second choice?
>>>
>>> That VMS be licensed, at zero cost (since that appears to be HP's idea
>>> of it's value) to a consortium which would then do with it's version of
>>> VMS whatever it chooses to do.
>>>
>>> High on my list would be a study to see what paths would be long term
>>> viable. Is x86 a viable long term direction? What else.
>>>
>>> I'd see those customers who are rather captive on VMS to be approached
>>> for contributions, or actual inclusion into such a consortium. If VMS
>>> has any future value, it would be because of it's usage by such
>>> customers, so they have a vested interest.
>>>
>>> Actually, the above would be my FIRST choice, and HP making the
>>> investment my second, or lower, choice.
>>>
>>> Dreaming? Perhaps.
>>
>> If there is no business case for HP, then why do you expect
>> a business case for somebody else?
>>
>
> Because I believe that there just may be a sound business case, but HP
> is not interested in such business cases. There is such a thing as
> "small business".

The OS business is not known to be a potential "small business".

Arne

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-06-08, BillPedersen <***@ccsscorp.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013 4:52:59 AM UTC-4, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> Keith Parris, who posted the original letter here in comp.os.vms, is a HP
>> employee.
>>
>> However, I strongly agree; a posting in comp.os.vms is not something which
>> can be used as a basis for decision making.
>>
>> I've already asked Keith for a official HP address containing this letter
>> and I was ignored, so I assume it's not on a HP site yet.
>>
>> Keith, when can we expect to see this letter on a official HP website or
>> when can customers be expected to be formally notified by letter ?
>>
>
> Simon:
>
> Rest assured that this is not a hoax. I have been sent a PDF of the letter,
> before it was public. It is signed by Ric Lewis and is on his "stationery". I
> can also confirm that there are no typos in the original letter. The one
> discussed elsewhere was as Keith pointed out his doing. The key paragraph is:
>

Hello Bill,

I never said it was a hoax. In fact, I was confirming it's genuine by
telling the OP that Keith's a HP employee.

However, in what _is_ a major communications screwup by HP, by now this
should either be on a public HP owned website or HP should have said
officially that the process of formally notifying customers by, say,
letter is in progress.

It's good that Keith told us (and thanks to Keith for that), but for
something this important customers also need a formal notification
of some kind from HP itself through a official HP communications
channel.

It's almost like HP management are trying to do the EOL on the quiet.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[JF Mezei]

On 13-06-08 12:34, Simon Clubley wrote:

> It's almost like HP management are trying to do the EOL on the quiet.

Technically, this step is not an EOL. It does not announce end of sales
for VMS, nor does it announce end of "development" (even though we all
know development has been scaled back to mere maintenance). And the 5
year timer for legal support requirements does not kick in with this letter.

In fact, HP announces extension of sales of the Tukwila based systems.
In fact, such a letter isn't too different from when HP decided that VMS
wouldn't run on superdomes.


It is interesting that HP had no problem announcing EOL of its own MPE
and Tru64 when it bought Compaq (as well a its Journada PDA line). But
for anything related to Itanium, there is a shroud of secrecy which
prevents HP from announcing EOLs that are obvious to everyone.

What irks me most is HP suggesting VMS customers migrate to HPUX or NSK,
both of which are in the same sinking Itanic boat. HP is in a state of
denial, incapable of fessing up the truth. It is like those musicians on
the top deck, continuing to play the violin to make the passengers feel
it was still a viable luxury liner with drinks being served and violins
playing.

It isn't so much the fact that HP is killing VMS (and the rest of IA64
ecosystem), but rather the fact that HP is blatantly and
unprofessionally trying to hide its obvious strategy on the matter.

Whoever advises HP's top management on how to handle the EOL of Itanic
should never ever be let go of HP. No other company should ever be stuck
with such incompetence.

Because at the end of the day, that letter is a blatant insult to BCS
customers' intelligence. (Especially since HP doesn't even have the guts
to post it on its web site).

[Howard S Shubs]

In article <51b38256$0$63301$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> What irks me most is HP suggesting VMS customers migrate to HPUX or NSK,
> both of which are in the same sinking Itanic boat. HP is in a state of
> denial, incapable of fessing up the truth. It is like those musicians on
> the top deck, continuing to play the violin to make the passengers feel
> it was still a viable luxury liner with drinks being served and violins
> playing.

There was nothing the people on Titanic could do, so they might as well
live it up. If that is a good parallel, there's nothing HP/HP's
customers can do, so they might as well live it up.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-06-08 09:06, BillPedersen wrote:

> Why it has not been posted to the web site yet I could not say.
>
> But the problem is real.

HP will try to avoid any bad publicity which will happen if this is
posted officially.

Also, it is possible that HP is sending the letter to gauge response and
there might be a small chance of the decision be reversed. Once it is
posted on the web site, it is a final decision beyond the point of no
return.

HP has never been forthcoming with regards to its policy on VMS, so it
is no surprise that they are not making the announcement "public".

Perhaps the letter should be sent to Larry Ellison. He would make it public.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <51b37a09$0$1524$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> writes:
> On 13-06-08 09:06, BillPedersen wrote:
>
>> Why it has not been posted to the web site yet I could not say.
>>
>> But the problem is real.
>
> HP will try to avoid any bad publicity which will happen if this is
> posted officially.
>
> Also, it is possible that HP is sending the letter to gauge response and
> there might be a small chance of the decision be reversed. Once it is
> posted on the web site, it is a final decision beyond the point of no
> return.
>
> HP has never been forthcoming with regards to its policy on VMS, so it
> is no surprise that they are not making the announcement "public".
>
> Perhaps the letter should be sent to Larry Ellison. He would make it public.

It was posted on USENET and carried on Google. Just how much more
public can it get?

bill

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

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-06-08, Bill Gunshannon <***@server1.cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>
> It was posted on USENET and carried on Google. Just how much more
> public can it get?
>

Do you see this announcement on The Register or on Slashdot (for example) ?

That's the start of how much more public it can get, but that's not
happened yet (unless I've missed it) because HP has still to make a
public official announcement.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <kovvfi$im0$***@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
> On 2013-06-08, Bill Gunshannon <***@server1.cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>
>> It was posted on USENET and carried on Google. Just how much more
>> public can it get?
>>
>
> Do you see this announcement on The Register or on Slashdot (for example) ?
>
> That's the start of how much more public it can get, but that's not
> happened yet (unless I've missed it) because HP has still to make a
> public official announcement.
>

Maybe part of the problem is people here thinking anyone other than
people here even care.

I am certain the official letter went out to the customers HP thinks
matter. That's certainly not me. So I am not holding my breath waiting
for my official copy. :-)

bill

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

[Roger Ivie]

On 2013-06-08, Simon Clubley <***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> Keith Parris, who posted the original letter here in comp.os.vms, is a HP
> employee.
>
> However, I strongly agree; a posting in comp.os.vms is not something which
> can be used as a basis for decision making.

I've seen a PDF of the letter, as well as a second similar letter, on HP
letterhead. It was sent to my work e-mail by my local HP guy.
--
roger ivie
***@ridgenet.net

[Neil Rieck]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:55:51 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> > I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP + GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149
>
>
>
> Has anyone found this story originally from www.openvms.org on a web site that belongs to www.hp.com. I cannot believe this is not a newsgroup troll if I am unable to find this statement on an official HP web site.
>
>
>
> Googling quotes from the www.openvms.org story just points me to that web site and this new group but no where else. If I google a quote about "AccuWeather improved runtime performance" I find that the AccuWeather story comes from an Intel web page and not an HP web page.
>
>
>
> Give me a URL about this from www.hp.com!!! Where's the BEEF!!!

It appears that the original post at www.openvms.org has been updated:

http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149

and now also provides the email address and telephone number of bearer of bad news.

Ric Lewis,
VP and General Manager,
Enterprise Servers Business

Anyone who was considering buying a 4-core Itanium for use with OpenVMS should send him an email.

###

No one can deny that the new official VMS road map (dated May-2013) is "4 pages in size" with only "2 pages of content".

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/pdf/openvms_roadmaps.pdf

I lost my 2012 copy due to a windows problem but do have a road map published Oct-2004 with 47 pages.

NSR

[Neil Rieck]

Thank the deity for cheap storage, the internet and Google. Here are some recent OpenVMS Road Maps

http://www.bellics.com/remote-link/

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 6/7/2013 7:55 PM, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 7, 2013 7:31:04 AM UTC-4, Neil Rieck wrote:
>> I just re-read the original customer letter from Ric Lewis) VP +
>> GM, Enterprise Servers Business, HP) which was reposted here:
>>
>> http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=13/06/06/2422149
>
> Has anyone found this story originally from www.openvms.org on a web
> site that belongs to www.hp.com. I cannot believe this is not a
> newsgroup troll if I am unable to find this statement on an official
> HP web site.
>
> Googling quotes from the www.openvms.org story just points me to that
> web site and this new group but no where else. If I google a quote
> about "AccuWeather improved runtime performance" I find that the
> AccuWeather story comes from an Intel web page and not an HP web
> page.
>
> Give me a URL about this from www.hp.com!!! Where's the BEEF!!!

The message is from a HP VP.

The message is on a forum of "good reputation".

The linked roadmap is on a hp.com server.

The chances of this being a hoax is microscopic.

Arne

[Colin Butcher]

Most OpenVMS systems out there today are mission-critical on one form or
another and because the systems "just work", they tend not to get much
attention. They also tend to run very specific applications (often bespoke
in one way or another), be fairly static over time and have risk averse
owners. One consequence of all that is that OpenVMS has a fairly low
profile, even within the organisations that rely on it.



The revised roadmap announcement is now getting quite a lot of attention.
It's a major change from previous roadmaps, not just the non-support for
Poulson.



I haven't yet seen the press pick up on it and speculate much yet either.



If it badly affects your business and its future plans, why not get your
board level people to talk directly to HP at board level and explain why
it's bad for your business and for HP's business. HP seems to work in a very
heirarchical manner, so it's only by hitting the very top level that changes
further down might be made to happen.



Cheers, Colin.

==================

Legacy = Stuff that works!

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <2f9aa2de-8192-4505-9110-***@googlegroups.com>, Neil
Rieck <***@sympatico.ca> writes:

> and I kind of feel sick.

Same here. I was surprised it hit me as hard as it did.

> This recent announcement is the worst of all because even though HP
> won the lawsuit
> with Oracle (forcing Oracle to support Oracle database products on HP
> systems running on Itanium chips), HP has decided not to support one
> of their own software products on an Itanium chip released in
> November of last year.
> Since no one is going to take HP to court over this fubar (Oracle should
> just to prove a point), this recent letter to HP customers can only be
> interpreted one way: VMS EOL.

Right. It also probably means, effectively, the end of Rdb. Rdb might
continue to be supported as long as someone pays for it, but there
probably will be little if any development of new features. Those still
on Alpha (or VAX) are probably folks with essentially frozen
applications who neither need nor want new features. Those driving the
new-feature development are those who continually upgrade their CPUs,
and they can no longer do so under VMS.