Re: Elvis is dead - get over it! (was: Re: New browser for OpenVMS in field test, Itanium only so far)



In article <gc3ja1$3og$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Maher" <maher_rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi David,

Unfortunately this is the same mentallity which lost VMS all the database
applications by insisting that VMS was just for the backend database.

Which "database applications"? And how does being "just for the backend
database" lose dtabase applications?

Well you can start with Oracle applications both directly from Oracle and
third-parties such as peoplesoft.
Digital/Compaq told the companies writing database applications not to write
them for VMS. VMS was just for the backend database.
Digital/Compaqs view was that Windows was for the client, Unix was for the
application layer and the secure VMS was for the backend database.

And then lost the backend databases because most companies wanted to run
the
backend and application layers on the same OS even if on separate
machines.

Again, a couple of examples would be useful? Personally I have not seen that
many bigoted companies. (Sorry, I have seen the "get rid of VMS" ones just
not many "Well it can stay if we *only* have VMS".)


Not bigoted. Just sensible companies. Having the same OS for the application
layer and the backend database layer meant reduced OS skills being required,
meant reduced problems with mismatches of database versions ie you could
upgrade both the application and backend database at the same time rather than
having to wait until the same database version was available on both OSs
(since obviously the application developer developed the application to work
with the database version available on the platform he was developing on
regardless of whether VMS supported that version).
Also , especially in the case of third-party developers who had probably never
tested their application with a VMS backend database, less support problems.

Also porting SeaMonkey or other desktop applications will undoubtedly
involve
porting various supporting applications and libraries which will aid
others in
porting other Unix applications.

Look, I'm not sure if everyone is deliberately missing the point or whether
you just don't get it.

There are certain basic requirements for any modern OS.
To my mind these include a web browser , email support and a modern GUI.
At last we have movement on at least one of these.

Porting fairly complex Unix applications such as SeaMonkey needs the build
environment to also be ported - supporting applications and libraries
which will aid in porting other Unix software - whether that porting is carried
out by VMS development or by others. (It is a pity we are still waiting for a
port of UNIX Fork which would probably make this easier).


VMS development has finite dollars

Yes VMS development has finite dollars but I think providing what is now basic
OS functionality together with easing porting of applications from other
platforms is high priority.



David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University



and every project
has an opportunity cost on another, potentially far more worthy, rival. I
would love all the software in the world to run on VMS! I'd love Donkey Kong
and Super Mario (showing my age :-) or FaceBook to be there so Operations
and System Management would have something to do while they're "Monitoring".
I just don't think we're gonna sell more VMS boxes, or hang on to the
customers we have by eliminating the need for System Management to have to
FTP something over from a Windows or *nix box! Do you?

Until the self-serving low-life that are making these funding decisions are
*made* to disclose the number of customers that are being forced of VMS due
to no support for their existing (and future) 3GL applications then sadly
nothing is gonna change :-( Still 400,000 then eh?

Once again, please ask yourself how many sites will have end-users (yes
business users) that will be running this new VMS Browser? Then ask yourself
what percentage of the installed base has these same end-users accessing 3GL
code and Rdb/RMS/Orrible data on their VMS Boxes (but not for much longer as
they're sick of being kicked in the teeth while those wankers come up with
VMS for the iPhone)

Go one, try to webify your VMS/3GL application with the "solution(s)"
proffered by VMS Middle Management! Forget that, just try to put a GUI on
your 3GL code in 2009! No? They're just legacy customers that don't matter
(unless we can use 'em as an excuse to snatch a few more license-payer
dollars)? Welcome to the IMM team :-(

Maybe no users have PCs on their desks where you guys come from? I've been
at 3 Telcos, a couple of banks, local govt, retail, and all in 4 different
countries and funnily enough, I haven't seen one end-user or
business-steak-holder or prchasing officer that's gonna give a shit that
some System Manager doesn't have to FTP something to their VMS box!

Cheers Richard Maher

<david20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gbvn9e$ar9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <gbuk6i$lnk$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Maher"
<maher_rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi,

My primary desktop at home is an Alpha PWS. I also want an up to date
browser.

How about an up to date Word Processor? Spread Sheet? Calendar?

Should HP Middle Management pour the money into OpenOffice or just let
you
go for Google with your new Up to Date browser?

Should we go for the volume market of placating WunderGreis VMS System
Managers so that they don't have to sully their desks with one of those
nasty little PCs or Macs? Or will *anyone* say "Hold on! What software is
actually running on the VMS servers that these guys manage?" And is it
not
more important to keep that software on VMS then to port over a whole lot
of
crap so as to make the challenging job of "Monitoring" easier?

Please give me the demographic of any company's staff that will be
browsing,
word-processing, and mailing with VMS!

Then tell me how many of them access 3GL code and data hosted on VMS
servers
on a daily basis. (And are soon to cease doing so as HP/VMS management
have
given them no viable GUI or Web upgrade path :-( )


Richard,

Unfortunately this is the same mentallity which lost VMS all the database
applications by insisting that VMS was just for the backend database.
And then lost the backend databases because most companies wanted to run
the
backend and application layers on the same OS even if on separate
machines.

Also porting SeaMonkey or other desktop applications will undoubtedly
involve
porting various supporting applications and libraries which will aid
others in
porting other Unix applications.



David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University




Regards Richard Maher


"Rich Jordan" <jordan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ea70f99-2b0d-4a60-93b4-064fddc18a19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 30, 7:31 am, koeh...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
In article <op.uh9t4tnahv4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tom
Linden"
<t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Why on earth would VMS engr spend the resources to do this, I mean
who
really
gives a tinkers damn?

I do. I browse from VMS on a regular basis, without fear of some
web site attacking me via IE loopholes.

My primary desktop at home is an Alpha PWS. I also want an up to date
browser. At some point my VAXstation at work may no longer meet needs
and get replaced, probably by an XP1000 or DS10, at which point I'll
want a browser on it for work.

Alphas have two major advantages right now for that task (over
itaniums). They are more available (hobbyist side, and to be fair,
also at work with real licenses) due to cost and 'hand me downs' from
ugprades, and they are much more amenable to use in an office
environment. Itaniums are bloody noisy and hot, even with the 'office
friendly' kits.




.



Relevant Pages