New RoadMap out for VMS

[Richard Maher]

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/pdf/openvms_roadmaps.pdf

More great news about IPsec :-(

They sure must have the cream of software engineering plugging away at that
10yr old chestnut!

Regards Richard Maher

[JF Mezei]

Richard Maher wrote:
> http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/pdf/openvms_roadmaps.pdf
>

OK. Is it me, or is there no mention of future releases of VMS ?

I saw a mention of a patch to support Poulson machines in 2012 on VMS 8.4

A lot of the text seemed focused on what they added to 8.4 as opposed to
what is planned to be added in the future. Perhaps I misread.


Is VMS already in maintenance mode ?

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

JF Mezei wrote 2011-10-02 09:07:
> Richard Maher wrote:
>> http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/pdf/openvms_roadmaps.pdf
>>
>
> OK. Is it me, or is there no mention of future releases of VMS ?

Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
There is nothing saying that "VMS 8.5 will be released 2013"
(or whatever). Is that what you are missing ?

But what are you missing from VMS ?
(IPsec is aready mentioned).

>
> I saw a mention of a patch to support Poulson machines in 2012 on VMS 8.4
>
> A lot of the text seemed focused on what they added to 8.4 as opposed to
> what is planned to be added in the future. Perhaps I misread.

Obviously.

[MG]

On 2-10-2011 15:38, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
> There is nothing saying that "VMS 8.5 will be released 2013"
> (or whatever). Is that what you are missing ?

I was wondering about that, too. I haven't been using VMS for decades,
like some here on comp.os.vms, but I don't know or can't compare how
previous roadmaps were presented...


> But what are you missing from VMS ?
> (IPsec is aready mentioned).

That's the impression I got as well.

- MG

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

MG wrote 2011-10-02 15:44:
> On 2-10-2011 15:38, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
>> There is nothing saying that "VMS 8.5 will be released 2013"
>> (or whatever). Is that what you are missing ?
>
> I was wondering about that, too. I haven't been using VMS for decades,
> like some here on comp.os.vms, but I don't know or can't compare how
> previous roadmaps were presented...
>
>
>> But what are you missing from VMS ?
>> (IPsec is aready mentioned).
>
> That's the impression I got as well.
>

What impression ? *I* don't have any impression about anything.
I was asking JF (who commented in the road-map) what *he* was missing.

Jan-Erik.


> - MG

[MG]

On 2-10-2011 15:47, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> What impression ? *I* don't have any impression about anything.
> I was asking JF (who commented in the road-map) what *he* was
> missing.

I should be asking you, I have no clue what you're talking about
here...

- MG

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

MG wrote 2011-10-02 15:55:
> On 2-10-2011 15:47, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> What impression ? *I* don't have any impression about anything.
>> I was asking JF (who commented in the road-map) what *he* was
>> missing.
>
> I should be asking you, I have no clue what you're talking about
> here...
>
> - MG


I wrote (as a reply to JF Mezei) :

> But what are you missing from VMS ?
> (IPsec is aready mentioned).

And you (MG) replied :

> That's the impression I got as well.

Then I asked *what* impression (do I have that you
also have) ?

Regards
Jan-Erik.

[MG]

On 2-10-2011 16:06, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> And you (MG) replied :

Thank you for reminding me who I am...


> > That's the impression I got as well.
>
> Then I asked *what* impression (do I have that you
> also have) ?

It's an English language expression, it means that I (MG, indeed) got
the 'impression' --- which is a figure of speech --- that you (Jan-Erik
Soderholm) that it had indeed been mentioned, as you said. So, what I
(MG) did was agree with you. Sorry about that, I won't let it happen
again!

- MG

[MG]

On 2-10-2011 16:06, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Then I asked *what* impression (do I have that you
> also have) ?

It's an English language expression, it means that I (MG, indeed) got
the 'impression' that it had indeed been mentioned in that document,
as you (Jan-Erik Soderholm) said or remarked. So, what I (MG) did was:
I agreed with you, I said I got the 'same impression'. I hope it's
clear now? I'll make sure to phrase my replies to you differently in
the future.

- MG

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

MG wrote 2011-10-02 16:23:
> On 2-10-2011 16:06, Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>> Then I asked *what* impression (do I have that you
>> also have) ?
>
> It's an English language expression, it means that I (MG, indeed) got
> the 'impression' that it had indeed been mentioned in that document,
> as you (Jan-Erik Soderholm) said or remarked. So, what I (MG) did was:
> I agreed with you, I said I got the 'same impression'. I hope it's
> clear now? I'll make sure to phrase my replies to you differently in
> the future.
>
> - MG

Aha, OK. What I ment was that IPsec specificaly has been mentioned as
someting "good to have" before. So my point was, what else does
JF want in some future VMS release, *apart* from IPsec. :-)

Or in other words, what is missing from the roadmap ?

I'm not native english so I'm sure I have problem both
expressing myself and understand others. :-)

Jan-Erik.

[JF Mezei]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.

If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
existing version of the layered product/middleware.

There is no mention of a new version of VMS.

Will IPsec be introduced as an ECO of TCPIP services, or will there be a
totally new version of the product ?

The bulk of the text of the document is focused on listing the current
release of products.

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

JF Mezei wrote 2011-10-02 20:17:
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
>> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
>
> If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
> existing version of the layered product/middleware.

It's about 50/50 between ECO's and new features.
But read it as best fits your purpose, of course.

>
> There is no mention of a new version of VMS.

So what ? What do you miss ? (I think I asked, didn't I?)

>
> Will IPsec be introduced as an ECO of TCPIP services, or will there be a
> totally new version of the product ?

So what ? Whenever it's shipped, what does it matter in what
package it's released ?

[JF Mezei]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

> So what ? What do you miss ? (I think I asked, didn't I?)

At this point, I am not missing anything. I am glad I moved email off
VMS because it was causiong me too much grief.

Just because I no longer have plans for VMS does not mean I am not
curious about its future and how the "new" HP is handling its
maintenance and upgrades.

I would still love for HP to bring VMS back to life and market all its
advantages. But I am no longer hopeful this will happen.

And this roadmap seems to point to VMS going into maintenance mode even
if not officially in such a mode.

As expected, the focus seems on supporting new hardware (support for
blades, poulson and new tape drives). Didn't see anything about
improvements to DCL.

What surprises me is continued development of both Seamonkey and
Firefox. Would have thought that they would have focused on one (and
perhaps port Thunderbird to provide modern email client on VMS).

[Steven Schweda]

On Oct 2, 6:35 pm, JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> What surprises me is continued development of both Seamonkey and
> Firefox. Would have thought that they would have focused on one (and
> perhaps port Thunderbird to provide modern email client on VMS).

What's surprising? Firefox is IA64-only, and, apparently,
likely to stay that way. The primary criterion in all this
"development" seems to be to keep some minimal set of paying
victims paying, not to create a product which would attract
any new victims, or even to impress any existing ones.

My personal complaint, aside from the practical
destruction of the hobbyist program, is the lack of a modern
Web browser on Alpha, combined with a lack of audio support
on IA64. SWB on an XP1000 is getting to be too slow and
disfunctional to use with sites like the new HP user forum
(disaster), and without audio, an IA64 is not a full-function
workstation, making VMS an increasingly poor primary system
for my purposes.

The Roadmap item funniest to me was the description of
GnuPG as "continuously updated on the web". What I see at
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/opensource/gnupg.html
is still "Download GnuPG V1.4-7 for OpenVMS for Integrity
servers and OpenVMS Alpha (December 2007)". The current 1.x
version is 1.4.11. This must be some new meaning of
"continuously". Or else they're advertising _my_ GnuPG kits.

Nowadays, the only real surprise would be actual, serious
VMS development. I'm not holding my breath.

[JF Mezei]

The unceremonious dumping of the real VMS engineering and replacement by
newbies was supposed to be transparent to the customer base.

And if HP wanted to make the change transparent, they would have kept
the roadmaps with plenty of mew features planned, perhaps without a
timeline since it is harder to plan delivery dates when your team lacks
experience.

Next year's roadmap could better define the timeline because by then,
VMS management will have a better grasp on the capabilities of their team.

The anorexic roadmap sends the message that HP is not willing to spend
much money in the medium and long term to upgrade VMS in any signifiacnt
way.

Short of a major policy change (Hello Meg Whitman !), it is very
unlikely that the roadmap will regain weight from its current anorexic
state and it will simply become a copy of HP's hardware announcements so
that VMS can run on new IA64 hardware.


Also consider that if HP is already planning the EOL announcement of
Itanium, it is logical that product roadmaps for products that won't be
ported beyond IA64 to essentially stop in the next year or two.


On the other hard, HP might surprise us ad the reason the roadmap is
anorexic is that most of the team is already busy porting to x86.


This is exactly why Meg Whitman has to hurry up to announce what her
vision/strategy is going to be for HP, especially with regards to the
BCS/Itanium ecosystem.


If they were to announce that IA64 was going to be EOLed after Poulson
and that VMS is being ported to x86, then we could all understand
the currently anorexic roadmap.

But without that announcement, the roadmap points to VMS not longer
actively being developped and going into maintenance/support mode.

And this is certaintly true when you consider the Oracle/RDB issues.

[Neil Rieck]

On Oct 3, 2:32 am, JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> The unceremonious dumping of the real VMS engineering and replacement by
> newbies was supposed to be transparent to the customer base.
>
> And if HP wanted to make the change transparent, they would have kept
> the roadmaps with plenty of mew features planned, perhaps without a
> timeline since it is harder to plan delivery dates when your team lacks
> experience.
>
> Next year's roadmap could better define the timeline because by then,
> VMS management will have a better grasp on the capabilities of their team.
>
> The anorexic roadmap sends the message that HP is not willing to spend
> much money in the medium and long term to upgrade VMS in any signifiacnt
> way.
>
> Short of a major policy change (Hello Meg Whitman !), it is very
> unlikely that the roadmap will regain weight from its current anorexic
> state and it will simply become a copy of HP's hardware announcements so
> that VMS can run on new IA64 hardware.
>
> Also consider that if HP is already planning the EOL announcement of
> Itanium, it is logical that product roadmaps for products that won't be
> ported beyond IA64 to essentially stop in the next year or two.
>
> On the other hard, HP might surprise us ad the reason the roadmap is
> anorexic is that most of the team is already busy porting to x86.
>
> This is exactly why Meg Whitman has to hurry up to announce what her
> vision/strategy is going to be for HP, especially with regards to the
> BCS/Itanium ecosystem.
>
> If they were to announce that IA64 was going to be EOLed after Poulson
> and that VMS is being ported to x86, then we could all understand
> the currently anorexic roadmap.
>
> But without that announcement, the roadmap points to VMS not longer
> actively being developped and going into maintenance/support mode.
>
> And this is certaintly true when you consider the Oracle/RDB issues.

With HP jettisoning their PC business I would have thought new (or
renewed) attention would have been given to HP's enterprise business.
As others have already mentioned, the road map is full of
inconsistencies leaving me with the impression it was published by a
group who didn't even take the time to have it "proof read".

Perhaps HP management was under the impression that the Enterprise
business was just running fine (as seen from the 10 thousand foot view
of the board room)

Neil Rieck
Kitchener / Waterloo / Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/OpenVMS.html

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Neil Rieck wrote 2011-10-05 13:28:
> On Oct 3, 2:32 am, JF Mezei<***@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> The unceremonious dumping of the real VMS engineering and replacement by
>> newbies was supposed to be transparent to the customer base.
>>
>> And if HP wanted to make the change transparent, they would have kept
>> the roadmaps with plenty of mew features planned, perhaps without a
>> timeline since it is harder to plan delivery dates when your team lacks
>> experience.
>>
>> Next year's roadmap could better define the timeline because by then,
>> VMS management will have a better grasp on the capabilities of their team.
>>
>> The anorexic roadmap sends the message that HP is not willing to spend
>> much money in the medium and long term to upgrade VMS in any signifiacnt
>> way.
>>
>> Short of a major policy change (Hello Meg Whitman !), it is very
>> unlikely that the roadmap will regain weight from its current anorexic
>> state and it will simply become a copy of HP's hardware announcements so
>> that VMS can run on new IA64 hardware.
>>
>> Also consider that if HP is already planning the EOL announcement of
>> Itanium, it is logical that product roadmaps for products that won't be
>> ported beyond IA64 to essentially stop in the next year or two.
>>
>> On the other hard, HP might surprise us ad the reason the roadmap is
>> anorexic is that most of the team is already busy porting to x86.
>>
>> This is exactly why Meg Whitman has to hurry up to announce what her
>> vision/strategy is going to be for HP, especially with regards to the
>> BCS/Itanium ecosystem.
>>
>> If they were to announce that IA64 was going to be EOLed after Poulson
>> and that VMS is being ported to x86, then we could all understand
>> the currently anorexic roadmap.
>>
>> But without that announcement, the roadmap points to VMS not longer
>> actively being developped and going into maintenance/support mode.
>>
>> And this is certaintly true when you consider the Oracle/RDB issues.
>
> With HP jettisoning their PC business I would have thought new (or
> renewed) attention would have been given to HP's enterprise business.
> As others have already mentioned, the road map is full of
> inconsistencies leaving me with the impression it was published by a
> group who didn't even take the time to have it "proof read".
>
> Perhaps HP management was under the impression that the Enterprise
> business was just running fine (as seen from the 10 thousand foot view
> of the board room)
>
> Neil Rieck
> Kitchener / Waterloo / Cambridge,
> Ontario, Canada.
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/OpenVMS.html

OTOH, you can not have a road-map "with plenty of new features planned"
just for the sake of it. There must be some specific market/customer
need also. I still do not understand what JF is missing (apart
from IPsec maybe) from the raodmap. I agree that it might need
some proof-reading, but that is another question.

[MG]

On 3-10-2011 7:27, Steven Schweda wrote:
> My personal complaint, aside from the practical
> destruction of the hobbyist program, is the lack of a modern
> Web browser on Alpha, combined with a lack of audio support
> on IA64.

Is VMS I64 audio support still in the planning? I do remember
reading that there's just one single, rare and technologically
extremely dated (over a decade old, at least), HP-badged audio
card that will provide 'limited audio' (you made a hilarious
comment about it on the ITRC forum at the time, I remember).

In some presentation sheets that I've seen, I saw mention of
audio support. But then, a lot of things were mentioned (like
I64 Hobbyist media becoming "available soon").


> The Roadmap item funniest to me was the description of
> GnuPG as "continuously updated on the web". What I see at
> http://h71000.www7.hp.com/opensource/gnupg.html
> is still "Download GnuPG V1.4-7 for OpenVMS for Integrity
> servers and OpenVMS Alpha (December 2007)". The current 1.x
> version is 1.4.11. This must be some new meaning of
> "continuously". Or else they're advertising _my_ GnuPG kits.

Well, that's rather... blatant, to say the least. To me it's
no wonder that so many huge corporations like HP 'welcome' open
source.

Did they ever thank you or offer you, say, patch access in
return for your work? (Which, from their perspective, would
only allow you to 'do your work even better'.)

- MG

[Bob Koehler]

In article <4e89a315$0$2507$***@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG <***@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
>
> Is VMS I64 audio support still in the planning? I do remember
> reading that there's just one single, rare and technologically
> extremely dated (over a decade old, at least), HP-badged audio
> card that will provide 'limited audio' (you made a hilarious
> comment about it on the ITRC forum at the time, I remember).

As far as HP knows, VMS is a server OS. We may know better, but
why would HP put audio in a system for which it does not market
workstations?

[Steven Schweda]

On Oct 3, 6:57 am, MG <***@SPAMxs4all.nl> wrote:

> Did they ever thank you or offer you, say, patch access in
> return for your work? (Which, from their perspective, would
> only allow you to 'do your work even better'.)


You must be asleep and dreaming.

I asked ***@hp about hobbyist patch access
(along with an MMS bug report, and a complaint about
black-hole "feedback" Web forms) back around 23-AUG-2010.
About a day later, I was told:

Please note that patch kits for Hobbyist licenses is
currently an open item. We would have definite answer
on that in next couple of weeks.

Hearing nothing, I re-asked around 5-OCT-2010. Around
18-OCT-2010 I was told:

All hobbyists are also required to buy the support pack
to ensure getting patches.

Along with a complaint about that policy, I asked
(18-OCT-2010) about the cost of such a "support pack".
Hearing nothing, I asked again (21-DEC-2010). Again, no
useful response. Along the way, I also pointed to related
discussions on comp.os.vms and on the HP ITRC forum. I've
concluded that it's probably hopeless, and that I have no
real influence, which is why I expect to be migrating away
from VMS before very long. I find it all very sad, but I
also have little or no control over the situation.

[MG]

On 3-10-2011 16:24, Steven Schweda wrote:
> You must be asleep and dreaming.

Thanks, I'll say a nice thing to or about you again...

- MG

[MG]

On 3-10-2011 16:24, Steven Schweda wrote:
> You must be asleep and dreaming.

Sorry for asking, it won't happen again.

- MG

[Steven Schweda]

On Oct 3, 9:43 am, MG <***@SPAMxs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 3-10-2011 16:24, Steven Schweda wrote:
>
> > You must be asleep and dreaming.
>
> Sorry for asking, it won't happen again

My implication was that expecting gratitude from HP for
(unpaid) work which benefits them was unrealistic, but if
you'd be happier inferring a personal insult, then you have
my blessing.

[JF Mezei]

Steven Schweda wrote:
> My implication was that expecting gratitude from HP for
> (unpaid) work which benefits them was unrealistic, but if
> you'd be happier inferring a personal insult, then you have
> my blessing.


That is because we do not know the right people at HP. Say you lived in
the same city as Meg Whitman and bumped into her at the supermarket, you
could then introduce yourself as the provider of such and such package
that runs on one of HP's BCS systems and that you provide it for free
but would like a bit more technical/logistical help from HP.

She could then send the message down her troups and you'd have great
support from the right person.

The problem is that the people we are in contact with have no power.
They operate on a fixed budget on a contract to the parent company HP.

[V***@SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <***@eisner.encompasserve.org>, ***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>In article <4e89a315$0$2507$***@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG <***@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
>>
>> Is VMS I64 audio support still in the planning? I do remember
>> reading that there's just one single, rare and technologically
>> extremely dated (over a decade old, at least), HP-badged audio
>> card that will provide 'limited audio' (you made a hilarious
>> comment about it on the ITRC forum at the time, I remember).
>
> As far as HP knows, VMS is a server OS. We may know better, but
> why would HP put audio in a system for which it does not market
> workstations?

Rudimentary audio support was provided for one large customer that relied
upon their servers "BEEP"ing to notify the staff.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <***@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>
> Rudimentary audio support was provided for one large customer that relied
> upon their servers "BEEP"ing to notify the staff.

Gee, isn't that what the console is for?

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article
<0392bf32-1bc4-4169-92fa-***@e9g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Steven Schweda <***@gmail.com> writes:

> > Did they ever thank you or offer you, say, patch access in
> > return for your work? (Which, from their perspective, would
> > only allow you to 'do your work even better'.)
>
> You must be asleep and dreaming.

I've also asked at many different places, including some people I have
met personally, about patch access for hobbyists. I mentioned the
possibility of paying a fee and even inquired about "regular" access for
myself. Apart from a couple "we'll get back to you" responses, I didn't
get any answers (and none to my actual questions).

[Craig A. Berry]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> JF Mezei wrote 2011-10-02 20:17:
>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>
>>> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
>>
>> If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
>> existing version of the layered product/middleware.
>
> It's about 50/50 between ECO's and new features.
> But read it as best fits your purpose, of course.

Sadly, I think JF is right. The roadmaps have been on a diet for some
years, but this one is truly anorexic. The only glimmers of anything
that could really be called new development are support for Poulson and
a very small number of new I/O widgets, and the v8.0 C++ compiler for
Itanium. Everything else in the various "Future" sections look like
modest updates to what's already shipping or work that's long since done
but not yet shipped. For example, IPSEC is in a future section, but as
Richard M. keeps reminding us, that was done and working some time ago
and just hasn't been released.

I think the most ironic page is the one called "Application
Modernization...", which lists a handful of very old and obsolete
versions of some open source packages under the "Future" section. For
example, they project a future release of SeaMonkey 1.1.xx when 2.4.1 is
current.

And then in the "Current" section of that page, the exact same versions
of the same packages, plus a few other packages that have no updates
planned. For example, there are no planned updates to Apache, even
though the one they are shipping now is easily exploitable in ways that
will bring the whole machine to its knees.

>> There is no mention of a new version of VMS.
>
> So what ? What do you miss ? (I think I asked, didn't I?)

You're kidding, right? How about a modern file system that's not
horribly slow? How about a C environment (headers and library -- not
just compiler) that are actually C99-compliant? How about any of the
long list of items (I think it was 50-100) that were under consideration
a year ago for V.Next? VMS is a great technology, but it has some
catching up to do in a number of areas. Unfortunately it looks like it
will just keep falling further behind if this roadmap is any indication.

[Richard Maher]

"JF Mezei" <***@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com...
> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
>> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
>
> If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
> existing version of the layered product/middleware.
>
> There is no mention of a new version of VMS.
>
> Will IPsec be introduced as an ECO of TCPIP services, or will there be a
> totally new version of the product ?

After the Impressionists are finally finished with their haystacks, can I
just point out that IPsec has been on the "Future Release" schedule for over
10 years :-(

When does someone get called to account for this bullshit?

>
> The bulk of the text of the document is focused on listing the current
> release of products.

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 10/2/2011 6:21 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> "JF Mezei"<***@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
> news:4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com...
>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>
>>> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
>>
>> If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
>> existing version of the layered product/middleware.
>>
>> There is no mention of a new version of VMS.
>>
>> Will IPsec be introduced as an ECO of TCPIP services, or will there be a
>> totally new version of the product ?
>
> After the Impressionists are finally finished with their haystacks, can I
> just point out that IPsec has been on the "Future Release" schedule for over
> 10 years :-(
>
> When does someone get called to account for this bullshit?

Before you can "call someone to account" you will need to find someone
who has assumed responsibility for porting IPSEC to VMS or for writing
it from scratch. If you REALLY want it, start writing it. You'll get
it faster!

AFAIK VMS is no longer being developed. It's in "we wish it would go
away" mode as far as anybody assuming responsibility is concerned.

ISTR that HP is obligated to support VMS for several more years. That's
*NOT* the same as continuing development!

<snip>

I think that if you investigated, you would find that VMS uses
technology that is licensed from third parties. I don't want to think
of the unholy mess when HP drops support for VMS after honoring
contractual commitments to the Defense Department and, perhaps a few
other big customers.

If someone offered enough money, H-P might continue support for VMS.
I'll believe it when I see the signed contracts. . . .

[Forster, Michael]

Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!

On Oct 2, 2011, at 7:50 PM, "Richard B. Gilbert" <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 10/2/2011 6:21 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> "JF Mezei"<***@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
>> news:4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com...
>>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
>>>
>>> If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
>>> existing version of the layered product/middleware.
>>>
>>> There is no mention of a new version of VMS.
>>>
>>> Will IPsec be introduced as an ECO of TCPIP services, or will there be a
>>> totally new version of the product ?
>>
>> After the Impressionists are finally finished with their haystacks, can I
>> just point out that IPsec has been on the "Future Release" schedule for over
>> 10 years :-(
>>
>> When does someone get called to account for this bullshit?
>
> Before you can "call someone to account" you will need to find someone
> who has assumed responsibility for porting IPSEC to VMS or for writing
> it from scratch. If you REALLY want it, start writing it. You'll get
> it faster!
>
> AFAIK VMS is no longer being developed. It's in "we wish it would go
> away" mode as far as anybody assuming responsibility is concerned.
>
> ISTR that HP is obligated to support VMS for several more years. That's
> *NOT* the same as continuing development!
>
> <snip>
>
> I think that if you investigated, you would find that VMS uses
> technology that is licensed from third parties. I don't want to think
> of the unholy mess when HP drops support for VMS after honoring
> contractual commitments to the Defense Department and, perhaps a few
> other big customers.
>
> If someone offered enough money, H-P might continue support for VMS.
> I'll believe it when I see the signed contracts. . . .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Info-vax mailing list
> Info-***@rbnsn.com
> http://rbnsn.com/mailman/listinfo/info-vax_rbnsn.com

[JF Mezei]

Forster, Michael wrote:
> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!


For all the criticisms I have made of HP with regards to VMS, I have no
doubts that they will continue to support existing customers for a long
time.

Lack of development will be justified just as they did for VAX: they
will claim that a survey of their customers shows they are happy with
current features and do not need new stuff and do not wish to upgrade.

(whether that is true of not is not relevant, the press will just accept
that excuse and move on).

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 2, 8:27 pm, JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Forster, Michael wrote:
> > Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!
>
> For all the criticisms I have made of HP with regards to VMS, I have no
> doubts that they will continue to support existing customers for a long
> time.
>
> Lack of development will be justified just as they did for VAX: they
> will claim that a survey of their customers shows they are happy with
> current features and do not need new stuff and do not wish to upgrade.
>
> (whether that is true of not is not relevant, the press will just accept
> that excuse and move on).

Odd that they never correctly interpret the surveys which show their
customers are completely unhappy with that worthless puddle of feces
sold as HP-UX and that it should be discontinued in favor of a product
which actually works. They use THOSE surveys to justify throwing
money down the development pit for that hunk of trash.

VMS will not be ported because, as HP and Intel both showed the world,
neither was capable of creating a 64-bit processor without committing
a criminal theft of technology from Digital Equipment Corporation.
Since HP is completely in bed with Intel, we will never see 128-bit
VMS..unless AMD finally buys the VMS market from HP and ports
everything.

[Kenneth Fairfield]

On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!

[...]

Please see some of my posts from earlier this
year regarding Cerner and VMS. The other large
EMR vendor is Epic, and they're entirely O/S
agnostic (anything that Cache runs on is good
enough for them).

At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
industry whatsoever. Most big users are on AIX.
Smaller users are on other things, RHEL on Intel
H/W being prominent.

-Ken

[Craig A. Berry]

Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
>> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS.


> At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> industry whatsoever. Most big users are on AIX.
> Smaller users are on other things

I don't know about the future, but as far as who's running VMS now, I
know there are some health care folks that have home-grown software --
no Cerner in sight.

[Kenneth Fairfield]

On Monday, October 3, 2011 8:15:29 PM UTC-7, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> >> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS.
>
>
> > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> > industry whatsoever. Most big users are on AIX.
> > Smaller users are on other things
>
> I don't know about the future, but as far as who's running VMS now, I
> know there are some health care folks that have home-grown software --
> no Cerner in sight.

Folks with home-grown software are going to be at an
increasing disadvantage as provisions of the Affordable
Healthcare Act kick in, particularly, Meaningful Use.

I cited Cerner because they started out on VMS, and have
been the big gorilla in this field. They've completely
dropped support for VMS as of their 200x.19 release
(sorry, I don't recall the "x" at the moment, which
release came out in 2009...2010.02 is current).

I cited Epic because they play in the same field and have
caught up with Cerner, and judging from new customers, etc.,
will exceed Cerner quite soon.

*Small* applications in this arena are almost exclusively
on Wintel.

I honestly don't see any future at all in health care
for VMS. :-( I don't even see "legacy" use continuing
for more than 203 years because of the aforementioned
ACA.

-Ken

[Kenneth Fairfield]

Couple of typos...the last one hilarious!

On Tuesday, October 4, 2011 9:00:13 AM UTC-7, Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2011 8:15:29 PM UTC-7, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> > Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:

[...]

> Folks with home-grown software are going to be at an
> increasing disadvantage as provisions of the Affordable
> Healthcare Act kick in, particularly, Meaningful Use.

That would be, the Affordable *Care* Act, of course...

[...]

> I honestly don't see any future at all in health care
> for VMS. :-( I don't even see "legacy" use continuing
> for more than 203 years because of the aforementioned
> ACA.

I don't know how I hit "0" instead of "-"; that should be
"...for more than 2-3 years...". (Would that it really
was 203 years! :-)

-Ken

[V***@SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <15768392.2018.1317744013385.JavaMail.geo-discussion-***@prfh23>, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> writes:
>On Monday, October 3, 2011 8:15:29 PM UTC-7, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
>> > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
>> >> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS.
>>
>>
>> > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
>> > industry whatsoever. Most big users are on AIX.
>> > Smaller users are on other things
>>
>> I don't know about the future, but as far as who's running VMS now, I
>> know there are some health care folks that have home-grown software --
>> no Cerner in sight.
>
>Folks with home-grown software are going to be at an
>increasing disadvantage as provisions of the Affordable
>Healthcare Act kick in, particularly, Meaningful Use.

It's going to be shot down by the SCOTUS or it should. I've not seen any
benefit whatsoever from this. In fat, my "life sustaining" prescriptions
are costing me more than they did just a year ago.

Thank you not Mr. Obama.
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote 2011-10-04 23:11:
> In article<15768392.2018.1317744013385.JavaMail.geo-discussion-***@prfh23>, Kenneth Fairfield<***@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Monday, October 3, 2011 8:15:29 PM UTC-7, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>> Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
>>>>> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS.
>>>
>>>
>>>> At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
>>>> industry whatsoever. Most big users are on AIX.
>>>> Smaller users are on other things
>>>
>>> I don't know about the future, but as far as who's running VMS now, I
>>> know there are some health care folks that have home-grown software --
>>> no Cerner in sight.
>>
>> Folks with home-grown software are going to be at an
>> increasing disadvantage as provisions of the Affordable
>> Healthcare Act kick in, particularly, Meaningful Use.
>
> It's going to be shot down by the SCOTUS or it should. I've not seen any
> benefit whatsoever from this. In fat, my "life sustaining" prescriptions
> are costing me more than they did just a year ago.
>
> Thank you not Mr. Obama.

The cost for my medicin is aprox $20-25.000 USD a year.
Remicade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infliximab

*I* pay $15 USD for each visit (each 2 months) or a yearly
cost of aprox $90 USD. I can live with that.

I have no additional medical insurances apart from the
public one that covers everyone.

Do I prefer our system over the US one ? Yes I do.

[JF Mezei]

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> It's going to be shot down by the SCOTUS or it should.

It may affect you, but it doesn't affect VMS anymore because VMS
employees are in India and use the indian health system.

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 4, 4:11 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <15768392.2018.1317744013385.JavaMail.geo-discussion-***@prfh23>, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Monday, October 3, 2011 8:15:29 PM UTC-7, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> >> Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> >> >> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS.
>
> >> > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> >> > industry whatsoever.  Most big users are on AIX.
> >> > Smaller users are on other things
>
> >> I don't know about the future, but as far as who's running VMS now, I
> >> know there are some health care folks that have home-grown software --
> >> no Cerner in sight.
>
> >Folks with home-grown software are going to be at an
> >increasing disadvantage as provisions of the Affordable
> >Healthcare Act kick in, particularly, Meaningful Use.
>
> It's going to be shot down by the SCOTUS or it should.  I've not seen any
> benefit whatsoever from this.  In fat, my "life sustaining" prescriptions
> are costing me more than they did just a year ago.  
>
> Thank you not Mr. Obama.
> --
> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
>
> All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
> All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.


Read the entire story before slamming Mr. O. on the healthcare bill.
I was born a Republican and will give up my gun when they pry my cold
dead fingers from it, but, it was bribes paid to the Republican party
by the drug companies which BLOCKED Medicare from being able to
negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
pays less for each drug and procedure than Medicare does even though
Medicare is a much larger insurer.

[Kenneth Fairfield]

On Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:17:40 PM UTC-7, seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Oct 4, 4:11 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> > In article <15768392.2018.1317744013385.JavaMail.geo-discussion-***@prfh23>, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> > >Folks with home-grown software are going to be at an
> > >increasing disadvantage as provisions of the Affordable
> > >Healthcare Act kick in, particularly, Meaningful Use.
> >
> > It's going to be shot down by the SCOTUS or it should.  I've not seen any
> > benefit whatsoever from this.  In fat, my "life sustaining" prescriptions
> > are costing me more than they did just a year ago.  
> >
> > Thank you not Mr. Obama.
> > --
> > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
> >
> > All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
> > All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.
>
>
> Read the entire story before slamming Mr. O. on the healthcare bill.
> I was born a Republican and will give up my gun when they pry my cold
> dead fingers from it, but, it was bribes paid to the Republican party
> by the drug companies which BLOCKED Medicare from being able to
> negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
> pays less for each drug and procedure than Medicare does even though
> Medicare is a much larger insurer.

While I didn't reply to Brian, I happen to completely
agree with Roland's points.

I didn't reply because I didn't want this thread to
devolve into a political pissing match. :-( I merely
wanted to state the facts as seen from a vantage point
within a moderately large non-profit hospital system in
the Pacific northwest.

What most here probably don't appreciate is that health
care is one of the last industries to computerize (for
lack of a better term) data, i.e., patient data. Getting
doctors and nurses to "chart" in a computer application,
rather than on paper, is a huge change. Same goes for
ordering prescriptions and procedures, etc., etc.

The benefit of the electronic health record (EHR) is that
essentially all providers will have access to the same
patient record. This reduces (drastically in some cases)
the duplication of tests, increases communication between
the patients various providers hopefully stimulating a
collaborative approach, and allows a variety of automated
safety checks that increase patient safety.

I've already wandered a bit too far off topic, so if anyone
happens to be interested in a few more of the details of
what hospital systems are doing and the major changes they
face, drop me a note.

But back on topic, aside from the VA (I'd forgotten that,
thanks Roland), VMS has no future in this EHR arena, at
least not with the two biggest vendors in the field (nor,
as I said before, with small players who deploy on Wintel).

-Ken

[SeanOBanion]

On Oct 5, 4:18 pm, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:17:40 PM UTC-7, seasoned_geek wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 4:11 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> > > In article <15768392.2018.1317744013385.JavaMail.geo-discussion-***@prfh23>, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> writes:
> [...]
> But back on topic, aside from the VA (I'd forgotten that,
> thanks Roland), VMS has no future in this EHR arena, at
> least not with the two biggest vendors in the field (nor,
> as I said before, with small players who deploy on Wintel).
>
>     -Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


SAIC just finished upgrading CHCS (Composite Health Care System), the
military EHR, to OpenVMS on Integrity, and Cache,
and it's replacement (CHCS II / AHLTA) has been canceled.

No replacement has been announced for either, so it may be around for
awhaile...


Sean

[JF Mezei]

seasoned_geek wrote:

> I was born a Republican

Sorry to hear about your condition. I had read it usually develops in
early adulthood. First I hear of a case that developped at birth.

There is evidence that this condition can be cured though and people can
lead normal lives afterwards. There are more severe cases, such as what
afflicted Sarah Palin which are hopeless and can never be fixed.

:-) :-) ;-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

[V***@SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <3edba81b-33ff-4136-81cd-***@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, seasoned_geek <***@logikalsolutions.com> writes:
>On Oct 4, 4:11=A0pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <15768392.2018.1317744013385.JavaMail.geo-discussion-***@pr=
>fh23>, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Monday, October 3, 2011 8:15:29 PM UTC-7, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> >> Kenneth Fairfield wrote:
>> >> > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
>> >> >> Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS.
>>
>> >> > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
>> >> > industry whatsoever. =A0Most big users are on AIX.
>> >> > Smaller users are on other things
>>
>> >> I don't know about the future, but as far as who's running VMS now, I
>> >> know there are some health care folks that have home-grown software --
>> >> no Cerner in sight.
>>
>> >Folks with home-grown software are going to be at an
>> >increasing disadvantage as provisions of the Affordable
>> >Healthcare Act kick in, particularly, Meaningful Use.
>>
>> It's going to be shot down by the SCOTUS or it should. =A0I've not seen a=
>ny
>> benefit whatsoever from this. =A0In fat, my "life sustaining" prescriptio=
>ns
>> are costing me more than they did just a year ago. =A0
>>
>> Thank you not Mr. Obama.
>> --
>> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker =A0 =A0VAXman(at)TMESIS(=
>dot)ORG
>>
>> All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
>> All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.
>
>
>Read the entire story before slamming Mr. O. on the healthcare bill.
>I was born a Republican and will give up my gun when they pry my cold
>dead fingers from it, but, it was bribes paid to the Republican party
>by the drug companies which BLOCKED Medicare from being able to
>negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
>pays less for each drug and procedure than Medicare does even though
>Medicare is a much larger insurer.

And how does that help me in any way?


--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 5, 6:26 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> And how does that help me in any way?
>

If Medicare was allowed to negotiate both drug and service prices it
would cut over half a trillion a year from its cost. If you are a
U.S. Taxpayer that would help you a lot. If you happen to be a
foreigner with money invested in a mutual fund of some kind, it would
dramatically increase the odds of the T-bills your fund is holding
actually getting paid off.

[V***@SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <d4ca77c8-868f-4ead-9be7-***@n12g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, seasoned_geek <***@logikalsolutions.com> writes:
>On Oct 5, 6:26=A0pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> And how does that help me in any way?
>>
>
>If Medicare was allowed to negotiate both drug and service prices it
>would cut over half a trillion a year from its cost. If you are a
>U.S. Taxpayer that would help you a lot. If you happen to be a
>foreigner with money invested in a mutual fund of some kind, it would
>dramatically increase the odds of the T-bills your fund is holding
>actually getting paid off.

Well, I have no money for/in investments nor am I covered by Medicare.
With my $32K/year pharmacy bill, I can bearly pay the taxes. So, I'll
welcome any cuts that would see a few dollars of my efforts remain in
my hands!
--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 3, 12:32 pm, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> > Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!
>
> [...]
>
> Please see some of my posts from earlier this
> year regarding Cerner and VMS.  The other large
> EMR vendor is Epic, and they're entirely O/S
> agnostic (anything that Cache runs on is good
> enough for them).
>
> At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> industry whatsoever.  Most big users are on AIX.
> Smaller users are on other things, RHEL on Intel
> H/W being prominent.
>
>    -Ken

Right now the VA is tied bound and gagged to an old version of Mumps
which runs pretty much every VA. Some contracts have been put out,
but, from what I have heard, the existing Mumps code cannot be ported
to Cache.

[Doug Phillips]

On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, seasoned_geek <***@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 12:32 pm, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> > > Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!
>
> > [...]
>
> > Please see some of my posts from earlier this
> > year regarding Cerner and VMS.  The other large
> > EMR vendor is Epic, and they're entirely O/S
> > agnostic (anything that Cache runs on is good
> > enough for them).
>
> > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> > industry whatsoever.  Most big users are on AIX.
> > Smaller users are on other things, RHEL on Intel
> > H/W being prominent.
>
> >    -Ken
>
> Right now the VA is tied bound and gagged to an old version of Mumps
> which runs pretty much every VA.  Some contracts have been put out,
> but, from what I have heard, the existing Mumps code cannot be ported
> to Cache.


Huh? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA

I find it odd that "one of the most widely used EHRs in the world" is
so misunderstood, especially in this group.

[SeanOBanion]

On Oct 6, 9:11 am, Doug Phillips <***@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, seasoned_geek <***@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 12:32 pm, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> > > > Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > Please see some of my posts from earlier this
> > > year regarding Cerner and VMS.  The other large
> > > EMR vendor is Epic, and they're entirely O/S
> > > agnostic (anything that Cache runs on is good
> > > enough for them).
>
> > > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> > > industry whatsoever.  Most big users are on AIX.
> > > Smaller users are on other things, RHEL on Intel
> > > H/W being prominent.
>
> > >    -Ken
>
> > Right now the VA is tied bound and gagged to an old version of Mumps
> > which runs pretty much every VA.  Some contracts have been put out,
> > but, from what I have heard, the existing Mumps code cannot be ported
> > to Cache.
>
> Huh? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA
>
> I find it odd that "one of the most widely used EHRs in the world" is
> so misunderstood, especially in this group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Since VistA is not CHCS, what's your point?

VistA is for the Veterans Administration hospitals and clinics
CHCS is for DOD hospitals and clinics, generally on base (but not
Theater )


Sean

[Doug Phillips]

On Oct 6, 9:31 am, SeanOBanion <***@obanion.us> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:11 am, Doug Phillips <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, seasoned_geek <***@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 12:32 pm, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> > > > > Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > Please see some of my posts from earlier this
> > > > year regarding Cerner and VMS.  The other large
> > > > EMR vendor is Epic, and they're entirely O/S
> > > > agnostic (anything that Cache runs on is good
> > > > enough for them).
>
> > > > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> > > > industry whatsoever.  Most big users are on AIX.
> > > > Smaller users are on other things, RHEL on Intel
> > > > H/W being prominent.
>
> > > >    -Ken
>
> > > Right now the VA is tied bound and gagged to an old version of Mumps
> > > which runs pretty much every VA.  Some contracts have been put out,
> > > but, from what I have heard, the existing Mumps code cannot be ported
> > > to Cache.
>
> > Huh? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.
>
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA
>
> > I find it odd that "one of the most widely used EHRs in the world" is
> > so misunderstood, especially in this group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Since VistA is not CHCS, what's your point?
>
> VistA is for the Veterans Administration hospitals and clinics
> CHCS is for DOD hospitals and clinics, generally on base (but not
> Theater )
>
> Sean

And I don't understand your reply. The post to which I replied and all
of those quoted were about the VA, ergo VistA; CHCS was not mentioned
once. If you read the history you'll find that the VistA code-base
split four ways: VistA, CHCS, RPMS and MUSTI. CHCS is (afaik) the only
variant that is incompatible with the others. With The DoD's AHLTA
dead, CHCS should finally be brought back into synch.

With VistA costing as little as one-tenth as much as commercial
packages to implement (see the previous wiki link and its references),
has and is gaining world-wide support, is scalable from the small
private practice to the largest care providers in the world (both
private and government), with specialized add-ons being developed as
needed and it costs $.00 to obtain, it looks to me like VistA has some
strong legs. I don't see a good future for the commercial packages.

[SeanOBanion]

On Oct 6, 11:59 am, Doug Phillips <***@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:31 am, SeanOBanion <***@obanion.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 9:11 am, Doug Phillips <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 5, 3:13 pm, seasoned_geek <***@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 12:32 pm, Kenneth Fairfield <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sunday, October 2, 2011 6:04:26 PM UTC-7, Forster, Michael wrote:
> > > > > > Certain healthcare entities, private public mixed, rely on VMS. Ouch!
>
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > Please see some of my posts from earlier this
> > > > > year regarding Cerner and VMS.  The other large
> > > > > EMR vendor is Epic, and they're entirely O/S
> > > > > agnostic (anything that Cache runs on is good
> > > > > enough for them).
>
> > > > > At this point, VMS has no future in the healthcare
> > > > > industry whatsoever.  Most big users are on AIX.
> > > > > Smaller users are on other things, RHEL on Intel
> > > > > H/W being prominent.
>
> > > > >    -Ken
>
> > > > Right now the VA is tied bound and gagged to an old version of Mumps
> > > > which runs pretty much every VA.  Some contracts have been put out,
> > > > but, from what I have heard, the existing Mumps code cannot be ported
> > > > to Cache.
>
> > > Huh? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.
>
> > >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistA
>
> > > I find it odd that "one of the most widely used EHRs in the world" is
> > > so misunderstood, especially in this group.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Since VistA is not CHCS, what's your point?
>
> > VistA is for the Veterans Administration hospitals and clinics
> > CHCS is for DOD hospitals and clinics, generally on base (but not
> > Theater )
>
> > Sean
>
> And I don't understand your reply. The post to which I replied and all
> of those quoted were about the VA, ergo VistA; CHCS was not mentioned
> once. If you read the history you'll find that the VistA code-base
> split four ways: VistA, CHCS, RPMS and MUSTI. CHCS is (afaik) the only
> variant that is incompatible with the others. With The DoD's AHLTA
> dead, CHCS should finally be brought back into synch.
>
> With VistA costing as little as one-tenth as much as commercial
> packages to implement (see the previous wiki link and its references),
> has and is gaining world-wide support, is scalable from the small
> private practice to the largest care providers in the world (both
> private and government), with specialized add-ons being developed as
> needed and it costs $.00 to obtain, it looks to me like VistA has some
> strong legs. I don't see a good future for the commercial packages.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


My humble apologies - I hit the reply button without read the correct
quoted text...


Sean

[Keith Cayemberg]

On 06.10.2011 18:59, Doug Phillips wrote:

> With VistA costing as little as one-tenth as much as commercial
> packages to implement (see the previous wiki link and its references),
> has and is gaining world-wide support, is scalable from the small
> private practice to the largest care providers in the world (both
> private and government), with specialized add-ons being developed as
> needed and it costs $.00 to obtain, it looks to me like VistA has some
> strong legs. I don't see a good future for the commercial packages.

I must agree with Doug.

Vista (DHCP) originated on the OpenVMS Platform, before the port to
Linux OpenVMS was effectively in all 163 VA Hospitals, 800 clinics, and
135 nursing homes. Even after now having variants that run on Linux,
OpenVMS remains the primary VA platform as far as I can determine.

In Vistapedia it is stated:
"The main-stay for the VistA system in the DVA, now is the VMS operating
system, a true, clustered system."
http://vistapedia.net/index.php?title=What_Software_and_Hardware_does_VistA_need%3F

For those who missed it, there was a "VMS in the Medical Field" Thread
earlier THIS YEAR. Don't miss Mark Berryman's enlightening post
concerning CHCS on OpenVMS in "at least 100 DoD facilities."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/5f78c3bab111753b?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.vms/msg/893a122680c1e997?hl=en

And as far as the idea that OpenVMS has no future in the Health Services
Field, I can only see this as an opinion not based on research of the
field (but rather someone's local personal experience), and/or perhaps
based on the over-emphasis of which "commercial" application is making
the most growth noises at the moment and noted by stock market news
interests for where a fast buck can be made investing in a growing
company. Note that VistA and many M (MUMPS) implementations are open
source. While other OS's may be "good enough" for most average risk
tasks. A mission-critical tasks like EHR, EPR and EMR require a platform
that were designed and engineered as mission-critical system
architectures. Cutting corners here shows a basic ignorance of how
extremely hard it is to make a complex platform even 0.0001 percent more
available on the average. In life-critical environments this small
difference in reliability/quality/availability can be measured
empirically in lives and damaged health. Applying the popular IT market
notion that only the application is important and what OS internals and
architecture it runs on is unimportant is gross and morally criminal
negligence on the part of the many IT Consultants who effectively to do
this in life-critical environments. ONLY OpenVMS and Tandem OS have been
guaranteed by their owner to be (not five 9's, not six 9's but) 100%
platform available in owner audited HW/SW configurations. The Tandem OS
platform however is traditionally much more (in multiples) expensive for
the equivalent OpenVMS capacity due to Tandem OS's higher reliance on
the HW based redundancy of it's architecture..

Additionally, there are a LOT of other successful commercial and
open-source Health Services solutions running on OpenVMS today. And many
custom solutions based on M (MUMPS). For instance, one of the largest
University Medical Centers of Germany near to my home has a custom MUMPS
system on OpenVMS monitoring their Intensive Care Unit. That is my local
experience. So I don't see how the future of OpenVMS in the health care
field can be predicted from the business decisions of just 1 commercial
software provider (Cerner, while Epic has not made any business decision
specifically against OpenVMS as a DB level server to my knowledge).

EPIC's internal platform landscape includes OpenVMS:
http://careers.epic.com/position-161

Cerner's announcement
http://features.techworld.com/operating-systems/3332/openvms-apps-face-uncertain-migration-path/


OpenVMS-based Health Care Solutions and some known major Customers:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HP OpenVMS Systems Healthcare solutions partners portal
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/healthcare/
» Cerner Corporation
» IDX Systems Corporation
» InterSystems Corporation
» Misys Hospital Systems
» Ross Systems
» Siemens Medical Solutions of Siemens AG

Physician practice management system vendors on OpenVMS
http://tinyurl.com/3hmuugy
Accumedic Computer Systems, Inc. - AccuMed Client/Server
Cerner Corp. - HNA Millennium
Chart Ware, Inc. - Chart Ware
DeLair Systems, Inc.- DSI Practice Management System
Epic Systems Corp. - EpicCare
ESRI - ArcView
Global Health Systems, Inc. - Global Health Information System (GHIS)
IDX Systems Corp. - IDXtendR--The Group Practice
IDX Systems Corp. - IDXtendR--The MSO
GE Healthcare (formerly IDX Systems Corporation) - Flowcast
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/partners/geh/index.html
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/brochures/idx/idx.html
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/news/idx.html

ABB - PHARMASYST & Flowstream - ABB acquires pharmaceutical software
technologies
http://tinyurl.com/6gwaun2

BetaData Systems, Inc. - BetaMED - Medical Practice Management System
http://www.betadata.net/medical.htm

CareCentric - MestaMed HHA System
http://www.carecentric.com/
http://tinyurl.com/6brsopu

CareTech Solutions, Inc.
Detroit Medical Center operates 10 hospitals and institutions
http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=06/08/09/2368544

Cerner is today still providing Operational Management Services for
Cerner Millennium on OpenVMS
https://store.cerner.com/items/258
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/partners/cerner/index.html

Clinicom Pty Ltd - CLIMS (Clinicom Laboratory Interface Management System)
http://www.clinicom.com.au/
http://tinyurl.com/6yamax6

Codat, l'informatique des Laboratoires - SYSLAM version 64 bits "LAB64"
http://www.codat.fr/
http://codat.informatique.pagesperso-orange.fr/lab64.htm

edisolve.com, inc. - Middle Solve/2000 +Claims - health care industry
electronic claims processing
http://www.edisolve.com/
http://www.edisolve.com/SolutionsHealthCare_3.html
http://tinyurl.com/68nbd3n

Excalibur Systems Inc. - Merlin 2000 - Medical Billing Software
http://www.openvms.compaq.com/partners/excalibur/index.htm
http://www.excalibursystems.com/

Fidelity Information Services (formerly Greystone Technology Corp) -
GT.M Database Technology
http://www.fisglobal.com/products-technologyplatforms-gtm
http://sourceforge.net/projects/fis-gtm/

Genesis Health System
http://www.genesishcs.org
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/brochures/genesis/genesis.pdf
http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=04/04/19/7733576

HP - HealthView Connectivity Component (HVCC
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/info/SP4624/SP4624PF.PDF

Information Resource Products, Inc. - APC Ambulatory Grouper with OCE Edits
http://tinyurl.com/3we5clx
Information Resource Products, Inc. - Medicare Inpatient Prospect
Payment System
http://tinyurl.com/3l5fk2l

Instem LSS Limited - Provantis and Artemis II
http://www.instem-lss.com/solutions/provantis.html
http://tinyurl.com/3tjr8lc

InterSystems Caché in Healthcare - InterSystems HealthShare -
InterSystems TrakCare
http://www.intersystems.com/industry/healthcare/
InterSystems demonstrate large-scale Medical Records database capabilities
http://www.intersystems.com/press/2003/emrscalability.html
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/partners/intersystems/index.html

Intersystems M Technologies
http://mtechnology.intersys.com/index.html
DSM for OpenVMS
http://mtechnology.intersys.com/mproducts/dsm7/index.html
Knowledge Based Systems - KB_SQL - SQL/ODBC and reporting environment
for M Technology (MUMPS) databases
http://www.knowledgebasedsys.com/kbsql.html

McKesson Corporation - TRENDSTAR Decision Support System
http://tinyurl.com/635v4qc
http://features.techworld.com/operating-systems/1001/openvms-survives-and-thrives/
http://www.yardleyconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=39&Itemid=23
McKesson ClaimCheck and Autocoder were to be ported to OpenVMS

Misys Healthcare Systems - Misys Laboratory
http://www.misys.com/
Misys Healthcare Systems - Hospital Systems (formerly Sunquest)
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/healthcare/misys.html
http://tinyurl.com/6yjhjoy

Muir Computer Consulting - Healthcare Services Specialist
http://www.amuir.com/

Philips Healthcare - CT Scanners
http://www.healthcare.philips.com/main/products/ct/products/scanners/index.wpd
Philips Healthcare - Magnetic Resonance Imaging - Intera Family MRI
Products - GyroScan Intera
http://www.healthcare.philips.com/main/products/mri/index.wpd

PLATTON TECHNOLOGIES - Clinicians Gateway - Web Interfaces for Legacy
Databases
http://www.platton.com/
http://tinyurl.com/5rzddnk

Quest Diagnostics - Clinical Diagnostic Testing Services Worldwide using
OpenVMS
http://h20195.www2.hp.com/V2/GetPDF.aspx/4AA0-8461ENW.pdf

Ross Systems, Inc. - OpenVMS Healthcare Solutions
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/solutions/healthcare/ross.html

SAIC - supports U.S. Military Healthcare System (MHS) based on OpenVMS
platform
http://www.saic.com/

Siemens Medical Solutions of Siemens AG
» Siemens Pharmacy, a drug therapy and patient information system
» Medication Management, a software suite designed to manage medication
delivery cycles
» UNITY, an information integration suite
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/partners/sms/index.html

Tech Time - Health Information Services - STAT! Enterprise Medical
Management
http://www.techtimeinc.com/products/products.htm
http://www.techtimeinc.com/products/Stat_Brochure.pdf
http://www.techtimeinc.com/products/source/CLINICAL%20NOTES.htm
http://www.na-tech.com/creightonpressrelease10.11.2005.html

Technologie Diffusion - ISIS 3D - image processing and planning system
for modern radiotherapy
http://tinyurl.com/5ssnqho

Thomson MICROMEDEX
http://www.micromedex.com/

UK National Health Service - Blood and Transplant Services
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms_nhsbt_jan2010_4aa1-3908eew.pdf
NHS Supply Chain - NHS Logistics
http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=08/01/23/5121119
http://www.prlog.org/11227378-nhs-supply-chain-delivers-with-connx.html
Savant Enterprises Limited - PULSE - Blood Transfusion and Tissue
Banking System
http://www.savant.co.uk/project/pulse

SBPA Systems, Inc. - Group Benefit Administration System (GBAS)
http://tinyurl.com/6gs5wze
http://foresightcorp.info/news_events/releases/012904pr.htm

Sec 1.01 - Paradocs
http://www.sec101.ch/web/guest
http://www.openvms.compaq.com/partners/sec/index.htm

Vedant (formerly Cyrano) - TestStream
http://www.vedanthealth.com/products/teststream/

VistA - Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture
http://www.va.gov/VISTA_MONOGRAPH/index.asp
http://www.worldvista.org/
http://www.hardhats.org/
http://www.hardhats.org/adopters/vista_adopters.html
http://tinyurl.com/6aflgkv

WM-Data Novo Oy (formerly WM-Data Medical Systems)
- Blood Center Information Systems (BCIS)
- HIS Systems: P-INFO
- HIS Systems: PQ-Manager
- RADU-radiology information system
http://www.max-serv.com/pdf/members/member_14.pdf
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=877701

Woodward Associates (UK) Limited - autoGROUPER - "Grouping" of Episode
data to determine Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs)
http://www.woodwardassoc.co.uk/autogrouper.html
http://tinyurl.com/6x7dvyt

Xybion Medical Systems - PATH/TOX System - the most comprehensive
Preclinical Data Management System - PDF
http://www.xybion.com/Products/VitalPathSuite.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/5sme4ht


I find Health Informations Systems is a typical example of a software
market where OpenVMS's influence and penetration is grossly
underestimated by casual observers. To understand how widespread OpenVMS
solutions are or not, you must first research it intensely, and not take
statements from single persons or companies at face value. I could
provide similar long lists of OpenVMS solutions and customers if I had
the time for many other vertical software markets where people in this
forum have claimed there is no OpenVMS market (any more).

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 6, 11:59 am, Doug Phillips <***@netscape.net> wrote:


http://www.aplitrak.com/?adid=c2dhbGx1cC40ODc0NS4xNzYwQHRhaWx3aW5kLmFwbGl0cmFrLmNvbQ

*** 2 Experience programming in MUMPS (excluding post – relational
Cache) in a Digital / Compaq Open VMS environment.


http://www.elance.com/j/mumps-programmer/26393131/?utm_medium=partner&utm_source=indeed&utm_campaign=indeed&rid=18J3T&utm_source=indeed&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=indeed

Of course elance is where one posts when they want illegals for $10/
day

*** •Specific experience in the Veterans Affairs environment and with
VistA (including but not limited to Mumps/Cache,FileMan,Kernel,
VMS,VISta Internals, Vltria,and BusinessWare) preferred.

Not just the VA though
http://www.healthcareerweb.com/jobdetails/jobid-561318?zmc=Indeed
*** Various operating systems and databases such as Unix, VMS, Cache,
Oracle, SQL (structured query language), Access, Mumps

[SeanOBanion]

On Oct 7, 9:04 am, seasoned_geek <***@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:59 am, Doug Phillips <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.aplitrak.com/?adid=c2dhbGx1cC40ODc0NS4xNzYwQHRhaWx3aW5kLmF...
>
> *** 2 Experience programming in MUMPS (excluding post – relational
> Cache) in a Digital / Compaq Open VMS environment.
>
> http://www.elance.com/j/mumps-programmer/26393131/?utm_medium=partner...
>
> Of course elance is where one posts when they want illegals for $10/
> day
>
> *** •Specific experience in the Veterans Affairs environment and with
> VistA (including but not limited to Mumps/Cache,FileMan,Kernel,
> VMS,VISta Internals, Vltria,and BusinessWare) preferred.
>
> Not just the VA thoughhttp://www.healthcareerweb.com/jobdetails/jobid-561318?zmc=Indeed
> *** Various operating systems and databases such as Unix, VMS, Cache,
> Oracle, SQL (structured query language), Access, Mumps


Does it seem to be that MUMPS and Cache are spelled differently, so
that can't be the same (meaning there is no real understanding of the
issue)?

Or is Cache's support of MUMPS interpretation not a as complete as it
could be (I haven’t got to try either way...)?


Sean

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 7, 10:24 am, SeanOBanion <***@obanion.us> wrote:
>
> Does it seem to be that MUMPS and Cache are spelled differently, so
> that can't be the same (meaning there is no real understanding of the
> issue)?
>
> Or is Cache's support of MUMPS interpretation not a as complete as it
> could be (I haven’t got to try either way...)?
>

I don't personally work with either, but, this is how it has been
explained to me.

Initially, when Cache was created, back in the days of DEC
Professional Magazine, there was something of a migration path and
tool set. As time went on, no such animal existed.

Cache is built around an object database and claims to be something of
a 4GL language now. Mumps was not that. There is a response here
with some pretty good pointers about how to get documentation and
personal use versions.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/256876/tips-for-learning-mumps-m-cache

[seasoned_geek]

Another Military Medical OpenVMS job opening appeared today.

https://online.hjf.org/psc/eapp/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=206939&SiteId=1&PostingSeq=1

sans mumps though.

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 6, 9:11 am, Doug Phillips <***@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Right now the VA is tied bound and gagged to an old version of Mumps
> > which runs pretty much every VA.  Some contracts have been put out,
> > but, from what I have heard, the existing Mumps code cannot be ported
> > to Cache.
>
> Huh? Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.
>

It's not a matter of hearing. It's a matter of reading the contracts
they have been putting out. Especially when the ad explicitly states
they need Mumps, not Cache.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <4e8e46bc$0$7628$***@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>, Keith Cayemberg <***@arcor.de> writes:
>
> And as far as the idea that OpenVMS has no future in the Health Services
> Field, I can only see this as an opinion not based on research of the
> field (but rather someone's local personal experience), and/or perhaps
> based on the over-emphasis of which "commercial" application is making
> the most growth noises at the moment and noted by stock market news
> interests for where a fast buck can be made investing in a growing
> company.

All new applications are experiencing 100% growth when they make
thier second sale.

[seasoned_geek]

On Oct 2, 7:43 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On 10/2/2011 6:21 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "JF Mezei"<***@vaxination.ca>  wrote in message
> >news:4e88aad1$0$32083$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com...
> >> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>
> >>> Yes there is. Each page has a lable "Future:" and a list.
>
> >> If you look at most of those "Futures", there are merely ECOs of the
> >> existing version of the layered product/middleware.
>
> >> There is no mention of a new version of VMS.
>
> >> Will IPsec be introduced as an ECO of TCPIP services, or will there be a
> >> totally new version of the product ?
>
> > After the Impressionists are finally finished with their haystacks, can I
> > just point out that IPsec has been on the "Future Release" schedule for over
> > 10 years :-(
>
> > When does someone get called to account for this bullshit?
>
> Before you can "call someone to account" you will need to find someone
> who has assumed responsibility for porting IPSEC to VMS or for writing
> it from scratch.  If you REALLY want it, start writing it.  You'll get
> it faster!
>
> AFAIK VMS is no longer being developed.  It's in "we wish it would go
> away" mode as far as anybody assuming responsibility is concerned.
>
> ISTR that HP is obligated to support VMS for several more years.  That's
> *NOT* the same as continuing development!
>
> <snip>
>
> I think that if you investigated, you would find that VMS uses
> technology that is licensed from third parties.  I don't want to think
> of the unholy mess when HP drops support for VMS after honoring
> contractual commitments to the Defense Department and, perhaps a few
> other big customers.
>
> If someone offered enough money, H-P might continue support for VMS.
> I'll believe it when I see the signed contracts. . . .

As the Justice Department has proven time and time again, the only way
to change the behavior of HP is to offer prison time to its current
leaders. Otherwise, it's crime as usual.

[MG]

On 5-10-2011 22:03, seasoned_geek wrote:
> As the Justice Department has proven time and time again, the only way
> to change the behavior of HP is to offer prison time to its current
> leaders. Otherwise, it's crime as usual.

About that. Over here, in the Netherlands, they often praise China.
China is looked up to, for it's said that they have such a "booming
economy" (even using the exact English phrase in Dutch, for instance).
The Netherlands isn't alone in this, though.

So, I wonder if all of these company executives, market analysts,
business planners and managerial types --- particularly those who are
responsible for outsourcing, the same ones praising China --- would
then also be in favour of becoming more like China domestically? When
one fails catastrophically in China, there's often hell to pay. No
big multi-million bonuses, for sure.

- MG

[Bob Koehler]

In article <4e8e1591$0$2408$***@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, MG <***@SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
>
> So, I wonder if all of these company executives, market analysts,
> business planners and managerial types --- particularly those who are
> responsible for outsourcing, the same ones praising China --- would
> then also be in favour of becoming more like China domestically? When
> one fails catastrophically in China, there's often hell to pay. No
> big multi-million bonuses, for sure.

I remember the era of Japan bashing. We were warned that all the
programming jobs could go to Japan. Never mind we had to be
physically present to throw switches on the equipment we were
interfacing to.

Meanwhile in Japan, CEOs don't make orders of magnitude more than the
typical worker, and were still known to take terminal action in
response to getting caught making morally questionable business
decisions.