Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?
Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?
Once they limited the hobbyist programme to just the VMDKs on a yearly
basis, that was it. I'm not feeling very hopeful now.
Now they can't get the feedback on result when people do the kicking
the tyres on OpenVMS and testing all these lovely software packages off
their portal any more.
On 2024-05-21, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?
Because, in the words of Q, "it has all been said".
There's absolutely nothing new to talk about. This newsgroup has a lot
of off topic (or loosely related to VMS) discussions, but without those discussions this newsgroup would be mostly dead. VMS these days is a static known system, with no new functionality coming along. All the answers
that people need can probably be searched for.
In a couple of months it will be 10 years since the port of VMS to x86-64
VMS started, and at various points during that decade, many people have clearly been unable to wait any longer and have found alternatives outside
of VMS. The discussions here are only a fraction of what they were even
a few years ago.
I still use VMS, but the excitement I once had in it has utterly died
off for me.
On 5/21/2024 3:27 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
Once they limited the hobbyist programme to just the VMDKs on a yearly
basis, that was it. I'm not feeling very hopeful now.
Now they can't get the feedback on result when people do the kicking
the tyres on OpenVMS and testing all these lovely software packages off
their portal any more.
I believe that the changes to the CL program was a big step in
the wrong direction (I posted a long rant about it when it
happened).
But I am not convinced that it is the main reason for
c.o.v/I-V "decline".
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 12:19 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?
When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?
2 years ? 5 years ? 10 years ?
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
On 5/22/2024 12:52 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:> Now much is it
for
a personal licence?
I am not sure that I understand the question.
VSI got:
* commercial licenses
* ISV licenses
* VMS Ambassador licenses
* Community licenses
Do you mean what VSI charge for a commercial license for
a "hobbyist sized system"?
No idea. But I am sure that sales@vmssoftware.com could
provide a quote. New licenses are "per year" according to
previous discussions.
I suspect that it is more expensive than what a hobbyist
would want to pay. And I also suspect that you would need to
pay extra for a lot of things.
On 5/21/2024 1:52 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-05-21, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?
Because, in the words of Q, "it has all been said".
There's absolutely nothing new to talk about. This newsgroup has a lot
of off topic (or loosely related to VMS) discussions, but without those
discussions this newsgroup would be mostly dead. VMS these days is a
static
known system, with no new functionality coming along. All the answers
that people need can probably be searched for.
In a couple of months it will be 10 years since the port of VMS to x86-64
VMS started, and at various points during that decade, many people have
clearly been unable to wait any longer and have found alternatives
outside
of VMS. The discussions here are only a fraction of what they were even
a few years ago.
There are lot of things to talk about.
Lots of potential questions regarding VMS system management
or VMS programming.
(the non-system-manager and non-programmer VMS user is probably a
thing of the past)
The fact that the answer may be in some documentation and
possibly even be googleable does not mean no questions.
Questions are asked by humans not perfect search bots.
There has been a few new things in VMS x86-64 and VMS 9.x.
And as soon as VMS x86-64 has everything that VMS Itanium
had, then I would expect many more new features to be added.
No technical reasons for low activity.
But most readers (and potential posters) probably come
because they are interested in VMS.
And they don't think it is fun reading posts from people
with little interest in VMS talking about non-VMS things.
Arne
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.
On 2024-05-22, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.
I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.
Simon.
On 23/05/2024 13:14, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-05-22, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.
I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.
IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition
but no idea how to order
I wonder how many left usenet in disgust during the spam barrage
a few months ago? Many other newsgroups have grown quiet at
the same time.
On 5/24/2024 8:30 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-05-23, Robert Komar <robk@robpc4.robk-home.org> wrote:
I wonder how many left usenet in disgust during the spam barrage
a few months ago? Many other newsgroups have grown quiet at
the same time.
That's a very good point. I had forgotten about that.
Simon.
If you had a decent news server rather than using something free
(you get what you pay for!!) there was little if any SPAM barrage.
It only took mine (for a whopping $10 a year) about three days to
figure it out and end it.
bill
On 2024-05-23, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2024 13:14, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-05-22, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love >>>> to see if they can sell personal licenses.
I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.
IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition
but no idea how to order
I didn't know about that thanks.
I initially was interested until I read this:
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/ibm/ibm-offer-zos-app-development-and-testing-its-public-cloud
Apparently the price is in excess of $5,000. Yeah, I am NOT paying that...
Pity it wasn't closer to the Tru64 hobbyist pricing that was once offered.
Thanks for the link anyway however.
Simon.
There was a Learners edition which I gather was $120/month.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220222235516/https://ibm.github.io/zdt-learners-edition-about/
Pity it wasn't closer to the Tru64 hobbyist pricing that was once
offered.
Thanks for the link anyway however.
Simon.
Dave
On 5/22/2024 9:34 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 12:19 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?
When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.
That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.
In article <664dfc17$0$705$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
says...
On 5/22/2024 9:34 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 12:19 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?
When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.
That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.
What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?
And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI.
I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12 months
to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years to get the last
4% replaces with open source.
On 5/27/2024 6:07 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <664dfc17$0$705$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 5/22/2024 9:34 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 12:19 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question >>>> is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?
When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.
That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.
What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?
All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant software engineering and legal effort.
I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12
months to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years
to get the last 4% replaces with open source.
And that was when it was pushed by the CEO. I do not expect
that Neri would push for HPE open sourcing VMS the same way.
It was not cheap in 2014 either. But back then there was some
benefits too - there were customer commitments that HP/HPE could
shift over to VSI.
And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI.
Still work with no benefits.
In article <v337me$92s3$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 5/27/2024 6:07 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <664dfc17$0$705$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
says...
On 5/22/2024 9:34 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 12:19 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end >>>>>> of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced >>>>>> with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question >>>>>> is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough >>>>>> userbase left to remain viable ?
When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into >>>>> the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things >>>>> to run it bare metal.
That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.
What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?
All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.
But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).
I don't see how that is all that different from releasing the source
code to everyone and allowing everyone to take that code and build new
things on top of it (Open OpenVMS).
Either way you're distributing the code to someone other than HPE
employees and you'd have to be certain you had the right to sublicense
any 3rd party code under your chosen terms before doing that.
Given HPE hasn't added anything new since they conducted that review,
HPEs rights at this point should be known and additional reviews
shouldn't be necessary.
And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI.
Still work with no benefits.
Presumably if that ever happened it would be a case of VSI buying
OpenVMS from HPE outright so the benefit would be in the being paid for
it.
On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:15:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12 months
to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years to get the last
4% replaces with open source.
And then Oracle sued Google over it anyway.
On 5/27/2024 9:16 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <v337me$92s3$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 5/27/2024 6:07 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <664dfc17$0$705$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk
says...
On 5/22/2024 9:34 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 12:19 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end >>>>>> of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced >>>>>> with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question >>>>>> is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough >>>>>> userbase left to remain viable ?
When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into >>>>> the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things >>>>> to run it bare metal.
That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.
What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of >>> figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?
All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant >> software engineering and legal effort.
But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).
HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.
VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.
On 5/24/2024 8:29 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-05-23, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2024 13:14, Simon Clubley wrote:
On 2024-05-22, Single Stage to Orbit <alex.buell@munted.eu> wrote:
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love >>>>> to see if they can sell personal licenses.
I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS >>>> long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even >>>> though it has been asked for many times.
IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition
but no idea how to order
I didn't know about that thanks.
I initially was interested until I read this:
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/ibm/ibm-offer-zos-app-development-and-testing-its-public-cloud
That's not a hobbyist program.
In article <v33ev3$dujk$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 5/27/2024 9:16 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <v337me$92s3$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 5/27/2024 6:07 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <664dfc17$0$705$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, arne@vajhoej.dk >>>>> says...
On 5/22/2024 9:34 AM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 12:19 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end >>>>>>>> of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced >>>>>>>> with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question >>>>>>>> is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough >>>>>>>> userbase left to remain viable ?
When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into >>>>>>> the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things >>>>>>> to run it bare metal.
That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.
What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of >>>>> figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?
All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant >>>> software engineering and legal effort.
But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and >>> build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).
HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.
VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.
But HPE gave all of the OpenVMS *source code* to to VSI under some
license, a license that was different from any that had previously been applied to this source code. Any 3rd party code present was either sublicensed to VSI or removed and maybe provided in binary form only.
For HPE to do this they had to do some work to figure out what they
could and what they couldn't hand over. HPE had to be sure of their own rights before they could grant any rights to VSI. And they had to remove anything they weren't allowed to distribute, or go back to whoever owns
the code and get permission to sublicense it to VSI.
I don't see how that work is any less than what HPE would have to do to
open source it. I guess if you're open-sourcing it you might want to
search for and remove any insults from the code? But thats probably not strictly necessary.
Also, didn't DEC/Compaq actually publish some substantial part of the
OpenVMS codebase on Microfiche and CD-ROM? So presumably they would have
had pretty good records on what was fit for public release and what
wasn't.
Semi-related, is there actually much 3rd party code in OpenVMS beyond
X11, Motif and CDE (all things that are open-source today anyway)?
In article <v33ev3$dujk$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
On 5/27/2024 9:16 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
In article <v337me$92s3$1@dont-email.me>, arne@vajhoej.dk says...
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant >>>> software engineering and legal effort.
But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and >>> build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).
HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.
VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.
But HPE gave all of the OpenVMS *source code* to to VSI under some
license, a license that was different from any that had previously been applied to this source code. Any 3rd party code present was either sublicensed to VSI or removed and maybe provided in binary form only.
For HPE to do this they had to do some work to figure out what they
could and what they couldn't hand over. HPE had to be sure of their own rights before they could grant any rights to VSI. And they had to remove anything they weren't allowed to distribute, or go back to whoever owns
the code and get permission to sublicense it to VSI.
I don't see how that work is any less than what HPE would have to do to
open source it. I guess if you're open-sourcing it you might want to
search for and remove any insults from the code? But thats probably not strictly necessary.
Also, didn't DEC/Compaq actually publish some substantial part of the
OpenVMS codebase on Microfiche and CD-ROM? So presumably they would have
had pretty good records on what was fit for public release and what
wasn't.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 434 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 127:29:29 |
| Calls: | 9,113 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,422 |
| Messages: | 6,031,709 |