[comp.sys.dec] Ultrix, VMS, OSF, and Joe Yao's and Chet Rameys messages

aps@decwrl.dec.com (Armando P. Stettner) (11/02/88)

Hi.

It has been a long long time since I have submitted news.  But here
goes...

Joeseph Yao's (jsdy@hadron) news message is almost completely in
error.  Joe's news item incorporates a news item from Chet Ramey
containing what appears to be lines from Digital Review.  The DR
article states that VMS is OSF complient.  I see nothing wrong with
this statement.  What is ment is that of the interfaces that have been
`defined' by the OSF to make up their Level 0 Specification, VMS
complies; it has products that implement all of these interfaces.  It
does.  One should note that an Open System does not necessarily imply
UNIX (UNIX is not a necessary condition for an OPEN system).  Enough said.

As to the portability of VMS itself, there is no requirement that the
base implementation be portable.  VMS, itself is not really portable;
the `peculiar mixture of Bliss and VAX assembly language' does not
help, either.

Joeseph Yao's assertion that Ultrix 3.0 is just the same as VMS and/or
requires the use fo compilers that are maintained on VMS is simply
wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Nothing in the Ultrix Operating System
product from Digital is dependent upon compilers maintained on VMS.
(Of course, things like the VAX C compiler are maintained on VMS and
probably requires a VMS system to maintain it.  But this is ok.  The
`portable C compiler' which most UNIX people have grown to love (or
hate) continues to be maintained and supported in the Ultrix product.)
In short, Ultrix does not require VMS language processors for its own
maintainence; as with any UNIX system, it requires only its own
environment to support itself.

	aps.