I got the email this morning for the new CLP x86. It had general instructions
and then two links - one for a set of detailed instructions for using Oracle VirtualBox to create a VM and the link to a ZIP archive with the x86 vmdk files. There are two separate files which make up the whole disk. I up loaded
them to my ESXi host system and created a VM with the same settings as my current OpenVMS x86 systems except the disk was pointed to the uploaded community.vmdk
At the BOOTMGR prompt just doing a "BOOT" command failed with
%VMS_BOOTMGR-E-COMMAND, 0x00 is not a suitable boot device.
So I did a "DEV" command to get the name of the OpenVMS boot disk and used that
and it started right away
BOOTMGR> DEV
BOOTABLE DEVICES: B = BootMgr Device, V = Default VMS Boot Device
B DKA0 (HD) = FS0 UEFI: V9_2_2 VMS: V922 5120 MB SCSI Disk
BOOTMGR> BOOT DKA0
Booting...
%%%%%%%%%%% VSI OpenVMS (tm) x86-64 %%%%%%%%%%%
_______________________________________________
GRAPHICAL OUTPUT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
USE A TERMINAL UTILITY FOR ACCESS _______________________________________________
VSI Primary Kernel SYSBOOT Nov 9 2023 12:17:04
%SYSBOOT-I-VMTYPE, Booting as a VMware (tm) Guest
VMS Software, Inc. OpenVMS (TM) x86_64 Operating System, V9.2-2
Copyright 2023 VMS Software, Inc.
MDS Mitigation active, variant verw(MD_CLEAR)
%DECnet-I-LOADED, network base image loaded, version = 05.92.05
I have not had much time to work with it but here are the products and the licenses installed
$ product show product *
------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
PRODUCT KIT TYPE STATE ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
VMSPORTS X86VMS PERL534 T5.34-0 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS AVAIL_MAN_BASE V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS C V7.5-9 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS CMS V4.8-9 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS CXX V10.1-1 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DECNET_PLUS V9.2-E Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DECSET V13.0-1 Platform Installed
VSI X86VMS DTM V4.5-6 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF V1.8 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF_SUPPORT V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS ENVMGR V1.9-5 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS FORTRAN V8.5-8 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS KERBEROS V3.3-2A Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS MMS V4.0-4 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS OPENSSH V8.9-1G Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS OPENVMS V9.2-2 Platform Installed
VSI X86VMS SSL111 V1.1-1W Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS SSL3 V3.0-11 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS TCPIP V6.0-23 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS VMS V9.2-2 Oper System Installed ------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
20 items found
$ show lice
Active licenses on node V922:
------- Product ID -------- ---- Rating ----- -- Version --
Product Producer Units PCL Activ Version Release Termination
BASIC VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
C VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
COBOL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CXX-V VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
DTM VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
FORTRAN VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
LSE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
MMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
OPENVMS-X86-HAOE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
PASCAL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VMSCLUSTER VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VMSCLUSTER-CLIENT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VOLSHAD VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
$
Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS. Neither is BASIC, COBOL
nor PASCAL for languages. If you had the foresight to download the FT versions
of those then you could install and run them. Licenses for clustering and volume shadowing are supplied so you can still work with VMSclusters.
I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to
my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some of
them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not
included but , again, I think that's part of HAOE.
On 4/1/2024 4:32 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
I got the email this morning for the new CLP x86. It had general instructions
and then two links - one for a set of detailed instructions for using Oracle >> VirtualBox to create a VM and the link to a ZIP archive with the x86 vmdk
files. There are two separate files which make up the whole disk. I up loaded
them to my ESXi host system and created a VM with the same settings as my
current OpenVMS x86 systems except the disk was pointed to the uploaded
community.vmdk
At the BOOTMGR prompt just doing a "BOOT" command failed with
%VMS_BOOTMGR-E-COMMAND, 0x00 is not a suitable boot device.
So I did a "DEV" command to get the name of the OpenVMS boot disk and used that
and it started right away
BOOTMGR> DEV
BOOTABLE DEVICES: B = BootMgr Device, V = Default VMS Boot Device
B DKA0 (HD) = FS0 UEFI: V9_2_2 VMS: V922 5120 MB
SCSI Disk
BOOTMGR> BOOT DKA0
Booting...
%%%%%%%%%%% VSI OpenVMS (tm) x86-64 %%%%%%%%%%%
_______________________________________________
GRAPHICAL OUTPUT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
USE A TERMINAL UTILITY FOR ACCESS
_______________________________________________
VSI Primary Kernel SYSBOOT Nov 9 2023 12:17:04
%SYSBOOT-I-VMTYPE, Booting as a VMware (tm) Guest
VMS Software, Inc. OpenVMS (TM) x86_64 Operating System, V9.2-2
Copyright 2023 VMS Software, Inc.
MDS Mitigation active, variant verw(MD_CLEAR)
%DECnet-I-LOADED, network base image loaded, version = 05.92.05
I have not had much time to work with it but here are the products and the >> licenses installed
$ product show product *
------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
PRODUCT KIT TYPE STATE
------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
VMSPORTS X86VMS PERL534 T5.34-0 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS AVAIL_MAN_BASE V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS C V7.5-9 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS CMS V4.8-9 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS CXX V10.1-1 Full LP Installed >> VSI X86VMS DECNET_PLUS V9.2-E Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DECSET V13.0-1 Platform Installed
VSI X86VMS DTM V4.5-6 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF V1.8 Full LP Installed >> VSI X86VMS DWMOTIF_SUPPORT V9.2-2 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS ENVMGR V1.9-5 Full LP Installed >> VSI X86VMS FORTRAN V8.5-8 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS KERBEROS V3.3-2A Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS MMS V4.0-4 Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS OPENSSH V8.9-1G Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS OPENVMS V9.2-2 Platform Installed
VSI X86VMS SSL111 V1.1-1W Full LP Installed
VSI X86VMS SSL3 V3.0-11 Full LP Installed >> VSI X86VMS TCPIP V6.0-23 Full LP Installed >> VSI X86VMS VMS V9.2-2 Oper System Installed
------------------------------------ ----------- ---------
20 items found
$ show lice
Active licenses on node V922:
------- Product ID -------- ---- Rating ----- -- Version --
Product Producer Units PCL Activ Version Release Termination
BASIC VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
C VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
COBOL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
CXX-V VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
DTM VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
FORTRAN VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
LSE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
MMS VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
OPENVMS-X86-HAOE VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
PASCAL VSI 6 0 1 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VMSCLUSTER VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VMSCLUSTER-CLIENT VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
VOLSHAD VSI 6 1 0 0.0 (none) 30-APR-2025
$
Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS. Neither is BASIC, COBOL
nor PASCAL for languages. If you had the foresight to download the FT versions
of those then you could install and run them. Licenses for clustering and >> volume shadowing are supplied so you can still work with VMSclusters.
I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to
my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
You must have been reading my mind. That was the first thing I thought of. So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
On 2024-04-01 22:34:53 +0000, John H. Reinhardt said:
You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not included but , again, I think that's part of HAOE.
The FOE foundation operating environment and BOE base operating environment group PAKs include TCP/IP, DECnet Phase IV, and DECnet-Plus.
Technically, yes, all of the OEs licenses include that as AFAIK they're all proper supersets.
The mapping of PAKs and groups is available in the sys$update:vmsinstal_lmfgroups.com data.
License-related doc here is lacking, but then I'm in a charitable mood.
On 4/1/2024 6:34 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
On 4/1/2024 4:24 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
You must have been reading my mind. That was the first thing I
thought of.
So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
Yes, they did. I hacked up the previous PAK command file for the new
licenses
and ran it. You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new
PAKs. Some
of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not
included but
, again, I think that's part of HAOE.
So, at least for now, the fear of needing to re-start with a new VMS
image each year, perhaps is not an issue, at least for those who know
their way around VMS.
On 4/1/2024 4:24 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
You must have been reading my mind. That was the first thing I thought of. >> So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
Yes, they did. I hacked up the previous PAK command file for the new licenses
and ran it. You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some
of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not included but
, again, I think that's part of HAOE.
On 4/1/24 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
On 4/1/2024 6:34 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
On 4/1/2024 4:24 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
You must have been reading my mind. That was the first thing I thought of.
So, did the issued licenses work on the previous VMS installation?
Yes, they did. I hacked up the previous PAK command file for the new licenses
and ran it. You can see there are 31 products NOT covered by the new PAKs. Some
of them are covered by the HAOE license, I think. DVNETEXT was not included but
, again, I think that's part of HAOE.
So, at least for now, the fear of needing to re-start with a new VMS image each year, perhaps is not an issue, at least for those who know their way around VMS.
It's not an issue today for folks who want to keep running the x86
systems they had running yesterday. But you won't get any patches,
updates, or upgrades to that system. And that's particularly awkward at
the moment, with so many things on x86 not quite finished and some of
the newest products apparently not on the vmdk (e.g., the brand new
BASIC compiler).
Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS.
Neither is BASIC, COBOL nor PASCAL for languages.
I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that !!!!!!!!" frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community Licence. :-)
On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that !!!!!!!!" >> frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community Licence. :-)
I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that. IANAL, but
the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about how
you get the license onto the system. It seems the vmdk thing is
intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
very well be good for that. As far as I can tell the delivery mechanism
is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
Note that DECnet-IV is not installed, only DECnet-PLUS.
That seems like a _really_ strange decision. Most people use DECnet-IV and only a few use DECnet-PLUS.
Does anyone have any ideas what the possible thinking could be here ?
Unfortunately, even when you consider that VSI has the right to decide
how products it makes are made available, nothing about how this has
been handled appears to make any sense. :-(
On 4/2/2024 9:16 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org>
wrote:
I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the supplied
licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that
!!!!!!!!"
frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community
Licence. :-)
I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that. IANAL, but
the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about how
you get the license onto the system. It seems the vmdk thing is
intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may
very well be good for that. As far as I can tell the delivery mechanism
is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
As far back as I can remember (which goes all the way back
to DEC) No license was freely transferable.
I am not about
to go and read the license now (TL:DR) but I am sure it's still
in there somewhere.
On 4/2/2024 6:08 PM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 4/2/24 2:53 PM, bill wrote:
On 4/2/2024 9:16 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
On 4/2/24 7:22 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-04-01, John H. Reinhardt <johnhreinhardt@thereinhardts.org>
wrote:
I have also done a LICENSE /ISSUE/PROCEDURE and copied the
supplied licenses to my previous OpenVMS x86 systems
Until someone in VSI gets into a "you are not allowed to do that
!!!!!!!!"
frame of mind and says it is against the terms of the Community
Licence. :-)
I would ask them to show me where in the terms it says that. IANAL,
but
the terms describe "use" of the license and don't say anything about
how
you get the license onto the system. It seems the vmdk thing is
intended to be a way to get newbies up and running quicker, and it may >>>> very well be good for that. As far as I can tell the delivery
mechanism
is completely orthogonal to the terms of the license.
As far back as I can remember (which goes all the way back
to DEC) No license was freely transferable.
Of course for commercial licenses you can't simply double your fun by
putting the same license on two systems because it's a pay-per-use
scenario, but no hobbyist nor community license has ever had that
restriction. Non-transferable in the community license agreement pretty
obviously means you can't give your license to someone else; it has
nothing to do with how many systems you can run that license on. You
are restricted to running on "servers, and/or emulators and/or
hypervisors"; the "and" part of "and/or" and the plural nouns clearly
set the expectation that you can be running more than one system. It
wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to provide licenses for clustering
if you were only allowed to run a single system!
Sure, they could change the agreement or cancel the program entirely or
simply stop providing licenses, as they will be doing for Alpha and
Itanium, but what the agreement in effect today actually says does
matter.
I am not about
to go and read the license now (TL:DR) but I am sure it's still
in there somewhere.
That's a pity since becoming less ignorant is pretty easy to do:
https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/agreement/
What would be the purpose of reading that? The Community License
Program is done.
bill
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 434 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 128:43:36 |
| Calls: | 9,113 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,422 |
| Messages: | 6,031,965 |