From: davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: dfw.general
Subject: Re: michaelangelo, the virus
Date: 7 Apr 92 09:50:18 GMT
Distribution: dfw
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1992Apr5.034556.16960@seas.smu.edu>, doug@letni.lonestar.org (Doug Davis) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.094125.16811@montagar.lonestar.org> davidc@montagar.lonestar.org (David L. Cathey) writes:
>>
>>	Clusters, distributed lock management, disk shadowing, Motif,
>>parallel processing, vector processing, shareable images, AST's, wide variety
>>of system service calls, Run-time libraries that already have implemented
>>common routines, record management (locking), ...  These are a few of my
>>favorite routines...
> None of your points are things that VMS has over any other os, 'esp. unix.
> 
> o Clusters are vax thing not a vms thing.

	Which by your definition would be something VMS has over UNIX. Besides,
	you're wrong, clusters are a *very* VMS thing.  The OpenVMS running on
	the Alpha/RISC chip does Cluster, and it is by no means a "VAX".

> o DLM (Distributed lock mangement) was done by att in RFS before VMS had it.

	DLM goes way beyond the file system in the VMS implementation...

> o sharable text images was in multics and any number of pre unix os's before
>   vms was around.  Also RSX and a CPM varient called IMDOS 
> o Motif came out of X development DONE on unix. DECwindows was derrived
>   from that.

	Another case of DEC keeping pace with industry standards?  Even
	Sun doesn't have Motif, but you can buy one for it from DEC!!!

> o AST's in various forms have been around long while in unix.. I don't
> remeber who had them first.

	So lets take a lot of good ideas and put it into an operating system.
This is good idea, no?  DEC has been open to including features, even if
they didn't invent them.  If you think there is something wrong with that, 
then point fingers are your favorite UNIX clonies... :-)

>>Non-standard?  Define the standard operating system for us then.  MVS/XA?
>>MS-DOS?  UNIX?  VMS?  Is this derived from Internationally agreed on standards,
>>number of installed systems, number of users, or just someones' "de-facto"? 
> I would consider that an operating system is "standard" whem muiltiple
> vendors invest millions of dollars making it work on their hardware. I
> don't see anyone beating dec's doors down ready to shell out mega bucks
> on a vms operating sytem..

	Okay, so DEC should be implementing MS-DOS/VMS, as there are millions
of dollars being spent on hardware and software.  Oh yes, Cyrix has an
Intel 486 clone, so it is more open hardware-wise now as well.  Wait a minute,
you can already get SoftPC for VMS...  Digital has it now?

	But isn't UNIX also the standard?  But now that leaves us with two
standards that are standardized between them!

	So let's just take UNIX as the standard then?  Well, still I beg the
question, WHOSE UNIX?  Who is defining the standard?  POSIX is the only
industry-wide standard I've heard of, and POSIX/VMS is one implementation of
that.  The fact that VMS is the underlying does not make it any less compliant
to the standard than anyone else's UNIX...  The ALL have extensions not all
UNIX's have...

>>Non-portable?  What is portable?  MS-DOS is portable, but only if you are
>>running on a Intel processor (not very, eh?).  UNIX portable?   Only if you
>>#ifdef your code to take in consideration the 100+ variations of UNIX or
>>changes made to work on specific hardware architectures. MVS is portable across
>>the identical hardware/software environment (that's as portable as they get,
>>folks...).  C is portable?  That's only one language, and I know UNIX people
>>that tear their hair out moving "portable" code from one UNIX system to another.
> 
> Gee almost 10 years ago I used to make a living PORTING code to various
> unix platforms from other ones. Nowdays it's not worth the time.  I have
> yet to do any serious work to port code to a "modern" unix platform, even
> ultrix. ;-)   Well it took me a couple of days to do gcc for a propritary
> unix-similer machine but it wasn't any hair pulling. In reality
> there is very little work (and zero fun anymore) to port code from
> "one" unix to any other  Part of this is because vendors strive
> to make sure there is some interoperability (ooooh, a buz word)
> between unix varients. Its also in part because programmers as
> a class have learned not to lock themselves into 
> a single vendors hardware platform or operating system.

	Hardware platform is irrelevent, like I said, operating environment
is really the issue.   There is a subtle but major difference.

	There is a recent ad running around of a vendor claiming to run on
over 80 varieties of UNIX.  Feel sorry for the rest.  Can't you see that until
there really is a standard (like POSIX), that software vendors will have to
buy one of everything so that they can port and test the code to insure that
it will run on the target system?  The hardware/OS vendors will like that...
Actually, why should everything need to run on everything?

	The way that vendors have been striving to make there sure there is
interoperability is to code for the least common denominator.  This leads to
inefficient coding and algorithms that are unable to take advantage of
new technologies.  Until everyone adopts thus-and-such as a standard, should
no one use it in developement?  That will completely stiffle the industry
(and yes, zero fun).  There will always be proprietary hardware/software in
order to make it profitable to advance the industry.  The degree of idealism
you are proposing is socialism of our industry.

>>Close-ended?  I don't think so.  Some said that COBOL was dead, but it is still
>>evolving.  MS-DOS is evolving, VMS is evolving, and UNIX is evolving.  Do you
>>mean "proprietary" maybe?  Yes, VMS is owned by Digital.  MVS/XA by IBM,
>>MS-DOS by Microsoft, ... and UNIX by AT&T.  
> Unix itself is owned by att but letsee,  off the top of my head, OSF/1,
> AIX, BSDreno, and BSDi. Their thats 4 UNIX varients that HAVE NO ATT
> CODE IN THEM.  How many companies market their own version of VMS?

	That too will change.  Besides all you have really said is now there
are 4 more different versions of UNIX to set the lowest the common denominator.
And what industry standard are they adhereing to?  
 
>>If you're going to say that one operating system is out-dated, then at least
>>enlighten us all on where the software industry should be spending our time...
> Okay consider yourself enligtened

	By what?  You still haven't defined any standard!

>>...all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same...  Yup, all
>>computers ought to be identical down the bit level.  Not all cars are the same,
>>not all building are the same, etc.  "Oh, but cars all operate the same!"
>>Sure, dude, got take a trip to England and steer with the glove box...
> 
> I have never once said all computers should be identical in fact
> until now we haven't been debating "computer achitecture".  Just operating
> systems.

	I've been arguing computer environment...  You've been insisting on
operating systems (UNIX, of course) as the future of the universe...

>           My point (other than to jab at vms because its icky ;-) ) as
> a fellow software type is that YOU shouldn't be encourageing vendors to
> continue to develop propritary operating systems or hardware.

	I think that telling people they should be moving away from VMS
because it is not UNIX is not something that YOU should be doing.  And
because I think that UNIX is icky...  Also, I think the differences promote
competition and growth in the industry.  Stop thinking about the computer
industry as how to build a better mouse trap and start thinking of better
ways to catch mice...

>                                                                The fortunate
> thing about DEC is that they have basically learned their lesson.  They
> are spending countless development dollars porting non VMS things (X11, POSIX)
> into VMS.  Not only does this help the VMS software base (which of course
> helps dec) It provides for a migration path for software currently being
> developed under VMS.  Some day you might want that spiffy accounting package
> to run under something other than DEC hardware..

	Which is EXACTLY my point.  VMS is not closed-ended and is always
evolving to include more standards.  You can be just as portable as you want to
be on VMS (even more so, since DEC adheres to more standards that anyone else)
as you can on any UNIX system.  Until recently, there haven't been any kind of
standards (besides a few languages).  Because of that, I refuse to believe
UNIX to be the software vendors "Holy Grail".  I have nothing against Open
Systems, but that does not mean everyone is required to run a UNIX.

	Variety is the spice of life, and it would be zero fun if all people
where the same, all cars the same, all houses the same, and yes, all operating
systems/hardware platforms the same.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.lonestar.org
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!texsun!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: dfw.general