stokes@udiego.UUCP (David M. Stokes) (09/29/88)
From the 26 Sept. 1988 `Digital Review' (used w/o permission)
CANNES, France -- VMS is more compliant with the spcifications of
the Open Software Foundation (OSF) than any other operating system
available today, DEC President Ken Olsen said on the second day of
the DECworld show, held here.
--
David Stokes Directions to my office: 1). Find USD,
Academic Computing Department 2). Go to the bottom of Serra Hall,
University of San Diego 3). Look for the door marked `MEN'
(619) 260-4810 or {ucsd|ucsdhub}!udiego!stokeschet@pirate.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) (09/29/88)
>From the 26 Sept. 1988 `Digital Review' (used w/o permission) >CANNES, France -- VMS is more compliant with the spcifications of >the Open Software Foundation (OSF) than any other operating system >available today, DEC President Ken Olsen said on the second day of >the DECworld show, held here. And VMS, with it's peculiar mixture of Bliss and VAX assembly language, is supposed to port with very little pain to all the machines that the OSF wants to offer support for? (At least, I would assume, those of the sponsoring corporations.) C'mon, Ken! Get real! VMS, though it has its good points, is simply not as portable as a variant of Unix. I guess Digital is quite sure that it can control the OSF, like it seems to be quite sure that it will control the evolution of the X Window System. This despite all the assurances that "the OSF is not controlled by any corporation; it is an independent entity". | Chet Ramey chet@cwjcc.CWRU.EDU chet@alpha.CES.CWRU.EDU | | Just another jerk takin' pride in his work...
kvc@nrcvax.UUCP (Kevin Carosso) (10/03/88)
In article <96@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> chet@pirate.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) writes: > >>From the 26 Sept. 1988 `Digital Review' (used w/o permission) > >>CANNES, France -- VMS is more compliant with the spcifications of >>the Open Software Foundation (OSF) than any other operating system >>available today, DEC President Ken Olsen said on the second day of >>the DECworld show, held here. > > >And VMS, with it's peculiar mixture of Bliss and VAX assembly language, is >supposed to port with very little pain to all the machines that the OSF >wants to offer support for? (At least, I would assume, those of the >sponsoring corporations.) C'mon, Ken! Get real! VMS, though it has its >good points, is simply not as portable as a variant of Unix. You are missing the point completely. OSF does not describe an operating system which is to be ported to various hardware flavors. OSF describes a set of standard interfaces which applications use to work with the operating system under which they are running. Whether that operating system be VMS or UNIX or XYZ or whatever makes no difference to OSF or -- and this IS the point -- to the application. Anyone can create the OSF interface layer for whatever OS they choose. DEC will do so for VMS and K.O. says it'll be easy. I don't think that's something we can judge. If you are a hardware vendor and you want an OSF compliant interface to your operating system and you don't already have an operating system, then you'd be a fool to port an OSF compliant VMS to your machine. You're much much more likely to port a UNIX variant along with some portable OSF interface that goes with it. DEC already has VMS, they don't give a damn about porting an operating system, they don't have to, they just need to provide the OSF interface layer. /Kevin Carosso kvc@nrc.com Network Research Co. kvc@ymir.bitnet kvc@nrcvax.uucp
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (10/06/88)
In article <96@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> chet@pirate.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) writes: >>From the 26 Sept. 1988 `Digital Review' (used w/o permission) >>CANNES, France -- VMS is more compliant with the spcifications of >>the Open Software Foundation (OSF) than any other operating system >And VMS, with it's peculiar mixture of Bliss and VAX assembly language, is >supposed to port with very little pain to all the machines ... > .. VMS, though it has its >good points, is simply not as portable as a variant of Unix. Unfortunately, the new version 3.0 of Ultrix is just as unportable as VMS. It requires language processors to compile it that are written in "half a dozen languages" under VMS (DEC versions of PASCAL, BLISS, C, FORTRAN, etc. - I wouldn't be surprised if PL/1 - and Macro-32). Since all of these are not yet ported to the "equally supported" Ultrix OS, they are compiled on a VMS system, binary-patched via an automated version of what until recently was a manual patch list, and then linked with Unix support libraries under Ultrix. SOMEBODY hasn't learned good software engineering practices. Or could they be (unproven supposition follows) trying once more to lock users into the DEC world??? I wish they hadn't hired those sales managers from IBM!!!!! In all fairness, the versions of Ultrix I've seen so far have had some excellent ideas in them. I've had to fix a lot in every one ... and the distributed source code doesn't always compile into the distributed binaries ... but excellent ideas, and sometimes good implementations. Joe Yao jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised) hadron!jsdy@{uunet.UU.NET,dtix.ARPA,decuac.DEC.COM} arinc,att,avatar,blkcat,cos,decuac,dtix,\ ecogong,empire,gong,grebyn,inco,insight, \!hadron!jsdy kcwc,lepton,netex,netxcom,phw5,rlgvax, / seismo,sms,smsdpg,sundc,uunet / [All of the foregoing is derived from a combination of observation and discussions, but remains my opinion only. -jsdy- ]
peggy@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Peggy Shambo) (10/08/88)
In article <790@hadron.UUCP> jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes: >In article <96@cwjcc.CWRU.Edu> chet@pirate.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) writes: >>>From the 26 Sept. 1988 `Digital Review' (used w/o permission) [ a lot of stuff about VMS..... ] C'mon folks. Maybe someone actually _thought_ that article was humorous to start, but can't you take it on over to another newsgroup now? This debate isn't what I come here for. (remember? this is the humorous group?) I have enough tech-talk on the job, I want to relax now. Oh, I know... you guys are the jokers, right? :-) Peg Shambo
harkavy@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Elliot G. Harkavy) (10/11/88)
C'mon guys give me a break. Maybe some of you Geeks find technichal specs funny, but most people don't. There are plenty of BBoards for the discussion of technical specs. I read them if I want to see them. Call me crazy, but I like to read rec.humor for JOKES. Please reserve your tech specs for some other more appropriate BBoards. Thank you for your support.
scj@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Scotian) (10/12/88)
In article <5531@netnews.upenn.edu> harkavy@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Elliot G. Harkavy) writes: >Maybe some of you Geeks find technichal specs funny, but most people don't. >Call me crazy, but I like to read rec.humor for JOKES. I second this! -- .............................................................................. Scott C. Jensen scj@mecc.MN.ORG
arosen@hawk.ulowell.edu (MFHorn) (10/13/88)
In article <1043@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG> scj@meccsd.UUCP (Scotian) writes: >In article <5531@netnews.upenn.edu> harkavy@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Elliot G. Harkavy) writes: >>Maybe some of you Geeks find technichal specs funny, but most people don't. >>Call me crazy, but I like to read rec.humor for JOKES. > >I second this! *flame on* Take a look at the newgroups line. It reads: rec.humor,comp.os.vms,comp.sys.dec You can edit it all by yourself. It's not a privilege reserved for us techincal geeks. I can't speak for other readers of comp.os.vms/comp.sys.dec, but I've been getting pretty tired of seeing these 'wrong newsgroup' flames to articles in the newsgroups in which they belonged. I've redirected followups to rec.humor (which I don't read). You can flame yourselves over there. *flame off* Andy Rosen | arosen@hawk.ulowell.edu | "I got this guitar and I ULowell, Box #3031 | ulowell!arosen | learned how to make it Lowell, Ma 01854 | | talk" -Thunder Road RD in '88 - The way it should be
pshen@mit-atrp.UUCP (Paul Shen) (10/18/88)
In article <1857@ddsw1.MCS.COM> peggy@ddsw1.UUCP (Peggy Shambo) writes: > >Oh, I know... you guys are the jokers, right? :-) > Does that mean 'comedian=joker' or 'humor=joke'? Paul