• Posts

    From Single Stage to Orbit@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 21 14:35:07 2024
    Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?
    --
    Tactical Nuclear Kittens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From chrisq@21:1/5 to Single Stage to Orbit on Tue May 21 15:51:44 2024
    On 5/21/24 14:35, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
    Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?

    Everyone exhausted after the cut & thrust of the Xterm thread ?...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Clubley@21:1/5 to Single Stage to Orbit on Tue May 21 17:52:35 2024
    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.

    Hell, even I am no longer interested in looking for various security issues
    to report and discuss when I see something that jogs my interest. I've never done this type of research outside of VMS, and the DCL research was indeed
    a one-off bit of research to try and find a security issue I could hit you
    all over the head with to make you aware that VMS has the same issues as everyone else.

    However, for the next couple of years or so, I still did a bit of research
    on the odd thing when something occurred to me as I was reading the documentation. The last piece of research I did was on the DECnet Phase IV issues I found several years ago and I currently have absolutely no interest
    in spending time doing any further research.

    I still use VMS, but the excitement I once had in it has utterly died off
    for me.

    Simon.

    PS: I wonder if VSI ever got around to fixing the DECnet Phase IV issues ?
    They were _NOT_ immediately exploitable issues, but they were issues
    that should have been fixed by now just in case someone else found
    a variant that is exploitable.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to Single Stage to Orbit on Tue May 21 16:07:47 2024
    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".

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to Simon Clubley on Tue May 21 15:29:18 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Single Stage to Orbit@21:1/5 to Simon Clubley on Tue May 21 20:27:07 2024
    On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 17:52 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:

    I still use VMS, but the excitement I once had in it has utterly died
    off for me.

    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.
    --
    Tactical Nuclear Kittens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Clubley@21:1/5 to arne@vajhoej.dk on Wed May 22 12:19:56 2024
    On 2024-05-21, Arne Vajhj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
    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 ?

    2 years ? 5 years ? 10 years ?

    Simon.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Single Stage to Orbit@21:1/5 to Simon Clubley on Wed May 22 14:34:16 2024
    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.
    --
    Tactical Nuclear Kittens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to Single Stage to Orbit on Wed May 22 10:07:20 2024
    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.

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to Simon Clubley on Wed May 22 10:20:14 2024
    On 5/22/2024 8:19 AM, 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 ?

    2 years ? 5 years ? 10 years ?

    The number of VMS system has declined for many years. I suspect rather consistently since the golden days of late 80's and early 90's.

    Some industry trends, but also other priorities by DEC/CPQ/HP.

    VSI actually prioritize VMS. It is their only priority. No
    Unix, no Windows, no PC's, no printers, no printer ink.

    And they have delivered on their first huge delivery: VMS x86-64.
    Delivered late true, but still delivered.

    The little we hear about VSI finances sound good.

    Lots of challenges ahead, but that is something VSI has in common
    with most businesses.

    VMS is in a much worse position than it was 35 years ago. But I think
    it is in a much better position than it was 10 years ago.

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Single Stage to Orbit@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 22 17:52:57 2024
    On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 10:07 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    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.

    Now much is it for a personal licence?
    --
    Tactical Nuclear Kittens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 22 13:09:39 2024
    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.

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Single Stage to Orbit@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 22 19:41:47 2024
    On Wed, 2024-05-22 at 13:09 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    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.

    It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
    to see if they can sell personal licenses.
    --
    Tactical Nuclear Kittens

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From chrisq@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 22 22:48:13 2024
    On 5/21/24 20:29, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    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 partly a reflection of the decline of text only usenet generally,
    as more more recent and feature rich discussion platforms take over.
    The provision of good editors for posts, the ability to post image and
    other files inline makes a big difference as well. usenet belongs to
    a different age and always was a bit clunky anyway, but served it's
    purpose well in the terminal and teletype interface age.

    Have a list of well over a dozen tech related newsgroups subscribed
    to, but most have no posts at all, perhaps one a month, while just
    two or three have regular activity. VMS being one of them. Have had
    usenet access since the later 80's, so sentimental value, but it's
    dying a slow death, unfortunately. That which is static and fails
    to embrace the new eventually becomes fossilised :-).

    As for VMS, its closed, expensive nature was always aimed more at
    business but hard work for software development. Our way or the highway.
    Where it did excel was the reliability of the software and the hardware
    it ran on, unique in many ways, back in the day. Meantime, the world
    moved on, while VMS effectively became orphaned. Now, platforms and os
    are two a penny. What defines success, is the surrounding software infrastructure and the ability to cover a wide range of applications
    and needs...

    Chris

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Clubley@21:1/5 to Single Stage to Orbit on Thu May 23 12:14:30 2024
    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.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Wade@21:1/5 to Simon Clubley on Thu May 23 19:35:30 2024
    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


    Simon.


    Dave

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Komar@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 23 18:56:33 2024
    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.

    It has been decades since I logged into a VMS system, but at
    least there are a few posts in this group to read.

    Cheers,
    Rob Komar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Clubley@21:1/5 to David Wade on Fri May 24 12:29:14 2024
    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.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Clubley@21:1/5 to Robert Komar on Fri May 24 12:30:09 2024
    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.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael S@21:1/5 to bill on Fri May 24 16:20:50 2024
    On Fri, 24 May 2024 08:48:47 -0400
    bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:

    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


    I think, the opposite is true.
    Those who used decent free news servers, esp. i2pn2.org, suffered less
    than those who were using cheap news servers.
    May be, your cheap server was an exception.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Wade@21:1/5 to Simon Clubley on Fri May 24 14:42:32 2024
    On 24/05/2024 13:29, 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

    Apparently the price is in excess of $5,000. Yeah, I am NOT paying that...


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Wade@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 24 16:47:42 2024


    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.


    Actually the IBM web sites says the Learners Edition will return

    https://www.ibm.com/products/z-development-test-environment

    scroll down to the FAQ which says:-

    What happened to ZD&T for Learner's Edition?

    Learner's Edition is currently being updated and will return soon.



    Dave

    Dave

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Goodwin@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 28 10:07:22 2024
    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. The only remaining value OpenVMS holds
    for HPE is whatever fees VSI is currently paying - probably not a vast
    sum as far as HPEs income sources go.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to David Goodwin on Mon May 27 20:15:09 2024
    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.

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 28 00:58:22 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Goodwin@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 28 13:16:59 2024
    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.

    The only potential issue I see is if HPE is having to pay per-license
    royalties to someone else for some 3rd-party thing in OpenVMS. But if
    they're doing that then they'd already know about it and such things
    could be stripped from an open-source release if if were to ever happen,
    just as Sun never open-sourced certain bits of Solaris.

    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.

    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.

    The bigger question is if there is any good reason for VSI to open-
    source anything. They're clearly not interested in increasing adoption
    so not a whole lot to gain by open-sourcing it.

    Though sometimes this stuff happens for no reason other than people
    within the organisation wanting it to happen. MS-DOS 4.0 wasn't open-
    sourced because Microsoft was after publicity or increasing sales of
    something. My understanding is that it was open-sourced because someone
    asked for it and a few people within Microsoft helped to make it happen.
    The publicity is more of a bonus than a goal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to David Goodwin on Mon May 27 22:19:14 2024
    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.

    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).

    Huge difference.

    Like the difference between closed source and open source.

    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.

    They certainly had to do some work.

    But allowing someone to use source code is not the same as open sourcing
    it and allowing the recipients to redistribute freely.

    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.

    The analysis would need to be redone from scratch. Different
    question.

    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.

    If VSI is making truck loads of money, then they may want to
    give HPE a good offer. And if it is good enough then HPE will
    of course consider.

    But I think that is a slightly different scenario than what triggered
    this subthread.

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Mon May 27 22:23:21 2024
    On 5/27/2024 8:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    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.

    No.

    Oracle sued Google over using code independently developed
    that implemented a large number of API's from that code base
    without being able to pass the TCK.

    Goggle eventually won in supreme court and avoided penalties.
    But before that they had resolved the issue by replacing the
    independently developed code base with the above mentioned
    code.

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Goodwin@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 28 15:46:05 2024
    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)?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Simon Clubley@21:1/5 to bill on Tue May 28 12:12:08 2024
    On 2024-05-24, bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
    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.


    I never said it was. Various vendors have offered low-cost pricing
    for developers on a range of products (sometimes with restricted usage
    rights) over the years. I initially thought this might now be true for z/OS.

    Simon.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Craig A. Berry@21:1/5 to David Goodwin on Tue May 28 10:52:03 2024
    On 5/27/24 10:46 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
    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)?

    I'm pretty sure some of the device drivers have vendor-supplied code in
    them. SSH was proprietary, but thankfully has been replaced by OpenSSH.

    It certainly isn't easy to understand from out here in the peanut
    gallery what makes it so difficult to open source VMS. But Clair Grant
    has said it's been tried on a couple of different occasions and it just
    isn't going to happen. I know it's c.o.v and back seat driving is what
    we do here (done some it myself!) but just be aware that senior level
    insiders have found the obstacles insurmountable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=C3=B8j?=@21:1/5 to David Goodwin on Tue May 28 14:44:43 2024
    On 5/27/2024 11:46 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
    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.

    It was not less work - it was different work.

    The right to give source code to VSI for use in VMS is one thing.

    The right to open source the code so that everybody can use it
    for whatever is another thing.

    If company X owns some code used in VMS, then VSI may automatically
    be permitted to use it in VMS if the original contract was worded for
    it, or they may have needed a permission, which X would give either
    for money or because they had other business reasons to do HPE a favor.
    It is extremely unlikely that X would give HPE permission to give
    X's source code away to the entire world.

    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.

    They did.

    But "source available" and "open source" are two very
    different concepts.

    "source available" just makes it possible to study the source.

    "open source" gives people the right to use the source code.

    https://opensource.org/osd

    Arne

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)