Re: Question for the Group

AEF schrieb:

Pardon my ignorance, but didn't Apple do the same? What did they do
wrong?

Certainly I do not have to repeat PC history here, or ?
It was IBM+MS+intel who lay the foundation for PCs
dominance in the 1980s. No chance for a small startup
like Apple to change that, no marketing could have done that.
They could be happy to stay at a few % of the market,
and even for that they will have to work harder and innovate faster than
the rest.


Others advertise security. Why not VMS? Why not back it up with
something? What would it hurt?

Nothing, but would it help ? Everybody claims to be "secure"
these days. Now if VMS would have some security certificate
from NSA or whoever issues such things, putting them five notches
above the usual Unix crowd, that would be something to brag about.


And those who claim security are doing better than VMS. So, if VMS
claimed security, it should do better, too, no?

Just think of a guy of those two or three academic generations
who have left unis without ever having heard about VMS.
For him, these letters would expand to "Video Management System",
or, as in google.de, to "Verkehrsverbund Mittelsachsen" which
is a public transport service in eastern germany.
He might read an ad about super-secure VMS, but
on the next page there's an ad about hyper-secure AIX
and on the next page another one touting ultra-secure Solaris.
Even if he hasn't heard about the latter two, how should he
be able to differentiate ? If there would be some official
certificate rating one high above the others, this would be at
least some differentiator.


OTOH, "security" these days means to organize your IT so
that it has minimum cross section to the evil internet,
rather than the choice of a particular OS.
Raise a firewall, hide business critical systems and
important databases etc.

Which isn't really enough.

These are by far the most important measures,
much more important than the choice of OS.
I think most security paranoid will tell you so.

Make ads claiming so and that demonstrate
how VMS does more than that.


Yeah, not everyone needs clustering. But I think many would benefit
from it.

But not if it comes at the price of an obscure OS which
has little else to offer.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OpenVMS security?
    ... OpenVMS is mostly written in a variety of type-safe languages, ... He is a security expert - ... The VMS kernel is mostly a DEC language claled BLISS and VAX Assembler. ... Getting privileges you don't have is ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: How to turn linux into VMS - memory refresher for Dave ...
    ... I am simply trying to find out if security in VMS is ... > superior by design when compared to *x. ... Most of UNIX ... Most of VMS was not implemented in C, ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: The Register: OpenVMS among most-secure of operating systems
    ... >> ahead of VMS for vunerabilities. ... > I have SSH on my VMS system. ... > any sort of security or DoS danger because of SSH. ... > should have been reported to CERT (if CERT was to be used as a valid ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Loose Cannon-dian
    ... claims about the state of security in an OS you're still learning? ... I'm sure the people trying to break VMS ... Take the format string bugs in finger, ... OS complexity is often a result of poor design. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Linux on military aircraft
    ... What I have been referring to in this thread is the 5-20 *security* ... Scenario #2 - like the big bank concept, ... you can buy the sources for VMS at a price such that a serious hacker could buy it. ...
    (comp.os.vms)