Discussion:
report of the last "rendez-vous autour de VMS" (2-FEB-2024)
(too old to reply)
vmsgenerations
2024-04-17 21:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Dear friends of VMS,

We suppose you enjoyed the VSI webinar of today. All of us too.

We have just posted today the report(s) of our last "rendez-vous autour
de VMS".

The detailed report is translated in english. The slides from IMPERVA
about security directive NIS2, and from COMMVAULT about their products
are mostly in english.

Have a look:
https://www.vmsgenerations.fr/rendez-vous-autour-de-vms-du-6-fevrier-2024/

Our candle for Camiel and Darya is lit :)

VMSgenerations working group
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-17 23:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by vmsgenerations
We have just posted today the report(s) of our last "rendez-vous autour
de VMS".
The detailed report is translated in english. The slides from IMPERVA
about security directive NIS2, and from COMMVAULT  about their products
are mostly in english.
https://www.vmsgenerations.fr/rendez-vous-autour-de-vms-du-6-fevrier-2024/
A few things I consider important:

<quote>
- a general security initiative is underway at VSI :
- for HITRUST certification is targetted in spring
- CVE reporting program
- partial NIST-2 compliance
- study for ISO 27001 certification
</quote>

sounds good.

<quote>
"X86 is the future of VMS, so the sooner you start thinking about
migration the better. We're
sharing links to all the resources to help you. We look forward to
helping you with your
migration".
...
Q: Examples of migration to x86?
...
A: HF: Yes, around 80 to 100 customers in the evaluation, test or
migration phase.
</quote>

That number need to x10 in 2024.

<quote>
R DZ: Can you explain the type of collaboration you're expecting?
R GC: Python example: no collaboration with one of the French
specialists (JFP). We ended
up with two channels that were moving forward without collaborating. We
had problems
receiving sources in a standard format. There are now opensource
products in the VSI
catalog, and it would be great to be able to participate in development
as we do with any
other opensource. Currently, participation in opensource development
related to VMS is
virtually closed. It's different from standard opensource. With VSI, the
answer is "we don't
have the resources to do it". VSI has been around for 10 years... it's
time to change that
</quote>

I think this is important.

It may be time-consuming and VSI has limited resources, but given
that >70% of code used in modern solutions is open source code
and because VSI has limited resources, then it very important
for VSI to get the VMS open source collaboration working!!

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-18 01:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
<quote>
"X86 is the future of VMS ..."
Just in time for x86 to no longer be quite at the forefront of server
computing, or even computing generally. ARM is having more of a presence,
and RISC-V is not far behind.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-18 02:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
<quote>
"X86 is the future of VMS ..."
Just in time for x86 to no longer be quite at the forefront of server
computing, or even computing generally. ARM is having more of a presence,
and RISC-V is not far behind.
x86-64 must still have liked a 90-95% market share in servers. Enough
for VMS.

It may be very different in 10 years. Who knows.

But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU. Itanium development
stalled around 2012. The last Itanium CPU's was shipped in 2021.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-18 03:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-18 18:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-18 22:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready.
Pity the same cannot be said of the port itself ...
Dan Cross
2024-04-18 23:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now. But that's irrelevant;
we'll be dealing with x86 for the next 20 to
30 years, at least. It may loss it's position
as #1 in 10, but it's not going away any time
soon.

- Dan C.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-19 14:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now.
You can buy an ARM server or rent an ARM VM in a public
cloud if you search for it.

But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers
or ARM VM's today.

So even though ARM would have been better than Itanium,
because it is possible to buy a new one, then it would
still have been a market disaster as VMS would still be
"that weird OS that requires different HW than the
rest of our stuff".

Arne
Dan Cross
2024-04-19 15:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now.
You can buy an ARM server or rent an ARM VM in a public
cloud if you search for it.
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers
or ARM VM's today.
So even though ARM would have been better than Itanium,
because it is possible to buy a new one, then it would
still have been a market disaster as VMS would still be
"that weird OS that requires different HW than the
rest of our stuff".
I see you omitted the rest of my post in which I
largely agreed with you. The point was that you are
mistaken in asserting earlier that ARM is not ready.
It absolutely is.

- Dan C.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-19 17:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now.
You can buy an ARM server or rent an ARM VM in a public
cloud if you search for it.
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers
or ARM VM's today.
So even though ARM would have been better than Itanium,
because it is possible to buy a new one, then it would
still have been a market disaster as VMS would still be
"that weird OS that requires different HW than the
rest of our stuff".
I see you omitted the rest of my post in which I
largely agreed with you. The point was that you are
mistaken in asserting earlier that ARM is not ready.
It absolutely is.
No. In this context being ready means that the CPU
has a position in the market where VMS users will consider
it an acceptable platform - and it does not. Maybe it will
in 10 years, maybe in 20 years. But not today.

Arne
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-19 17:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now.
You can buy an ARM server or rent an ARM VM in a public
cloud if you search for it.
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers
or ARM VM's today.
So even though ARM would have been better than Itanium,
because it is possible to buy a new one, then it would
still have been a market disaster as VMS would still be
"that weird OS that requires different HW than the
rest of our stuff".
I see you omitted the rest of my post in which I
largely agreed with you.  The point was that you are
mistaken in asserting earlier that ARM is not ready.
It absolutely is.
No. In this context being ready means that the CPU
has a position in the market where VMS users will consider
it an acceptable platform - and it does not. Maybe it will
in 10 years, maybe in 20 years. But not today.
And just to be clear.

The problem with ARM is not that x86-64 is #1 currently.

The problem with ARM is that a lot - probably most - sites
do not have any ARM at all.

Requiring ARM for VMS would mean introducing a new CPU type. And with
todays multi-multi-core CPU's that would typical mean
either having a lot of wasted resource by only using it for VMS
or having to move other workloads from x86-64 to ARM to accomodate
VMS.

Total no go most places.

Arne
John Dallman
2024-04-19 21:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
The problem with ARM is not that x86-64 is #1 currently.
The problem with ARM is that a lot - probably most - sites
do not have any ARM at all.
Dead right. VMS as an OS primarily intended to be run under x86-64
virtualisation is not a problem for today's corporate datacentres.
Requiring ARM would be a significant additional barrier.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Requiring ARM for VMS would mean introducing a new CPU type. And
with todays multi-multi-core CPU's that would typical mean
either having a lot of wasted resource by only using it for VMS
or having to move other workloads from x86-64 to ARM to accomodate
VMS.
Probably not, actually. The common ARM servers have Ampere Altera
many-cores processors with 64 or 80 cores. Those cores aren't very fast,
because their design prioritised low power usage. That's because their
target market was huge cloud datacentres, where their selling point is
their power efficiency reducing the cooling requirements. The square-cube
law means that in a big enough datacentre, cooling becomes the main
problem.

Those Ampere-based servers aren't terribly expensive. If VMS can handle
80 cores, it might be quite responsive running on one.

John
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-20 00:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dallman
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Requiring ARM for VMS would mean introducing a new CPU type. And
with todays multi-multi-core CPU's that would typical mean
either having a lot of wasted resource by only using it for VMS
or having to move other workloads from x86-64 to ARM to accomodate
VMS.
Probably not, actually. The common ARM servers have Ampere Altera
many-cores processors with 64 or 80 cores. Those cores aren't very fast,
because their design prioritised low power usage. That's because their
target market was huge cloud datacentres, where their selling point is
their power efficiency reducing the cooling requirements. The square-cube
law means that in a big enough datacentre, cooling becomes the main
problem.
Those Ampere-based servers aren't terribly expensive. If VMS can handle
80 cores, it might be quite responsive running on one.
Maybe. But VMS applications are traditionally not very CPU hungry.
I suspect 80 cores @ GHz speed will be overkill for the VMS application
developed on like dual CPU Alpha 200 MHz or VAX 30 MHz. It is not
like the new Java/Python/PHP/whatever applications that use
CPU power like a sponge suck in water.

And even if the cores are so slow that the combined power of
all cores are needed, then the VMS application would
typical be a few single threaded processes that could not
practically use that many cores.

But I believe that DCL would be very responsive.

:-)

Arne
John Dallman
2024-04-20 09:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Maybe. But VMS applications are traditionally not very CPU hungry.
Not now, because the CPU-intensive ones migrated off Itanium in search of
faster processors.

John
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-20 12:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dallman
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Maybe. But VMS applications are traditionally not very CPU hungry.
Not now, because the CPU-intensive ones migrated off Itanium in search of
faster processors.
True. CPU intensive applications has likely moved off VMS
years ago. So some selection in who is left.

My point was that I expect the majority of VMS sites to run
applications originally developed more than 25 years ago.

Some of them may have added CPU demanding extensions along
the way. But a lot of them would run damn fast even on
low end CPU's of today.

Arne
Dan Cross
2024-04-19 20:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now.
You can buy an ARM server or rent an ARM VM in a public
cloud if you search for it.
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers
or ARM VM's today.
So even though ARM would have been better than Itanium,
because it is possible to buy a new one, then it would
still have been a market disaster as VMS would still be
"that weird OS that requires different HW than the
rest of our stuff".
I see you omitted the rest of my post in which I
largely agreed with you. The point was that you are
mistaken in asserting earlier that ARM is not ready.
It absolutely is.
No. In this context being ready means that the CPU
has a position in the market where VMS users will consider
it an acceptable platform - and it does not. Maybe it will
in 10 years, maybe in 20 years. But not today.
That might have been what you _meant_, but that's not what you
_said_. What _I_ mean and what I said is that server-class ARM
machines exist, and they are ready for production use now, and
they are eating into the x86 server market. That doesn't mean
that they are useful for VMS.

Again, you omitted the context around what I wrote, in which I
said that the "readiness" of ARM was irrelevant, as x86 will
remain with us for decades to come.

- Dan C.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-20 00:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now.
You can buy an ARM server or rent an ARM VM in a public
cloud if you search for it.
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers
or ARM VM's today.
So even though ARM would have been better than Itanium,
because it is possible to buy a new one, then it would
still have been a market disaster as VMS would still be
"that weird OS that requires different HW than the
rest of our stuff".
I see you omitted the rest of my post in which I
largely agreed with you. The point was that you are
mistaken in asserting earlier that ARM is not ready.
It absolutely is.
No. In this context being ready means that the CPU
has a position in the market where VMS users will consider
it an acceptable platform - and it does not. Maybe it will
in 10 years, maybe in 20 years. But not today.
That might have been what you _meant_, but that's not what you
_said_.
I said that it was not ready.

You made some assumptions about what I meant by ready.

Some assumptions that was wrong.
Post by Dan Cross
What _I_ mean and what I said is that server-class ARM
machines exist, and they are ready for production use now, and
they are eating into the x86 server market.
I think that is common knowledge.
Post by Dan Cross
That doesn't mean
that they are useful for VMS.
Meaning that it is irrelevant for the topic of what VSI should
have ported to.
Post by Dan Cross
Again, you omitted the context around what I wrote, in which I
said that the "readiness" of ARM was irrelevant, as x86 will
remain with us for decades to come.
Yes, because it was pointless.

It does not matter that x86-64 is currently #1 and will be around
for decades. What matters is that most sites does not have
ARM servers today.

Arne
Dan Cross
2024-04-20 03:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But VMS could not wait years for a new CPU.
VMS wasn’t “waiting” for anything. It was customers waiting for VMS.
Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to a CPU
that may be ready some day in the future.
ARM is ready right now.
You can buy an ARM server or rent an ARM VM in a public
cloud if you search for it.
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers
or ARM VM's today.
So even though ARM would have been better than Itanium,
because it is possible to buy a new one, then it would
still have been a market disaster as VMS would still be
"that weird OS that requires different HW than the
rest of our stuff".
I see you omitted the rest of my post in which I
largely agreed with you. The point was that you are
mistaken in asserting earlier that ARM is not ready.
It absolutely is.
No. In this context being ready means that the CPU
has a position in the market where VMS users will consider
it an acceptable platform - and it does not. Maybe it will
in 10 years, maybe in 20 years. But not today.
That might have been what you _meant_, but that's not what you
_said_.
I said that it was not ready.
And you are wrong.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
You made some assumptions about what I meant by ready.
Some assumptions that was wrong.
Not really. I'm not in your mind, nor is anyone else other than
you. If you want people to know what you are thinking, then it
is on you to state that clearly and unambiguously. What you
_actually_ wrote was:

|Yes. Because VSI ported to a CPU that was ready. Instead of to
|a CPU that may be ready some day in the future.

Note that this was in reference to ARM and you wrote about
"readiness" in the present tense. ARM, the CPU, and systems
built around those CPUs, are "ready" by any reasonable
definition right now. If what you meant to say was that these
systems don't have sufficient market representation for a VMS
port, then you should have said that. If what you meant to say
was that these were not "ready" 10 years ago when the VMS to
x86 port started, then you should have said that. But if you
just make a general statement that "ARM isn't ready" then you're
just wrong, doubly so since that's not the same thing as, "the
ARM server market isn't ready for a VMS port."

In other words, it's on you to accurately represent what you
mean. If you don't do that, don't blame others when they
correct your misrepresentations of the current server landscape.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
What _I_ mean and what I said is that server-class ARM
machines exist, and they are ready for production use now, and
they are eating into the x86 server market.
I think that is common knowledge.
Perhaps, but that does not mean that you are aware of it. You
are so often wrong on the deeper technical specifics that I see
little reason to simply take your word for it, particularly when
you write the exact opposite.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
that they are useful for VMS.
Meaning that it is irrelevant for the topic of what VSI should
have ported to.
As I said above.

Again, you cut off part of my words. The full sentence I wrote,
of which you only quoted a fragment, is: "That doesn't mean that
they are useful for VMS."
(https://comp.os.vms.narkive.com/YCdFLLzW/report-of-the-last-rendez-vous-autour-de-vms-2-feb-2024#post24)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dan Cross
Again, you omitted the context around what I wrote, in which I
said that the "readiness" of ARM was irrelevant, as x86 will
remain with us for decades to come.
Yes, because it was pointless.
No. It was exactly the point. Your statement about ARM, you
know, the one that you actually wrote, was wrong. I corrected
it. I know that have a very hard time accepting it when people
point out that you are wrong, but that's your flaw, not mine.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It does not matter that x86-64 is currently #1 and will be around
for decades. What matters is that most sites does not have
ARM servers today.
Ah, but I didn't say that they did. You don't get to have it
both ways. You don't get accuse making others of bad
assumptions regarding things that you wrote rather plainly, and
then put words into their mouths.

- Dan C.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-19 22:00:01 UTC
Permalink
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers or ARM VM's
today.
Somehow I doubt that the (remaining) VMS customers are still running their
entire computing operations, or even most of it, on VMS.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-20 00:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers or ARM VM's
today.
Somehow I doubt that the (remaining) VMS customers are still running their
entire computing operations, or even most of it, on VMS.
True.

But they have x86-64 servers not ARM servers.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-20 00:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
But very few of the VMS customers will have ARM servers or ARM VM's
today.
Somehow I doubt that the (remaining) VMS customers are still running
their entire computing operations, or even most of it, on VMS.
True.
But they have x86-64 servers not ARM servers.
That seems a dubious presumption, that those still wedded to VMS are not
looking beyond x86, when others are.
John Dallman
2024-04-20 09:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But they have x86-64 servers not ARM servers.
That seems a dubious presumption, that those still wedded to VMS
are not looking beyond x86, when others are.
Some others are. This is not universal, or even terribly widespread. Most
ARM Linux work happens on cloud servers, running Python and other
scripting languages, where the customer doesn't know or care about the
underlying architecture. VMS cares a lot, because it's all compiled to
native code.

I work at a large ISV, on a site that produces software components for
sale to third parties. We are the only site, out of at least 30 in the
company, that has ARM Linux or ARM Windows running locally, or does
development for iOS, Android or ARM macOS. One or two other sites do
development for ARM Linux on AWS. Other sites have lots of iOS and
Android devices in use as personal devices, of course, and may have a few
Macs for publishing or other creative work.

But I have to explain to central IT all the time about ARM being a
different instruction set and incompatible, and it's taken ages to get
them to stop trying to install stuff remotely on ARM Windows. Fortunately,
the installers for OS services and the like refuse to install on the
wrong architecture, but that meant the installers failed and didn't
terminate. They just sat there consuming CPU and RAM, on machines that
aren't terribly powerful to start with.

John
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-20 22:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Most ARM Linux work happens on cloud servers ...
You are neglecting the huge installed base of Raspberry Pi boxes and
copycats. Very popular among the “Maker” movement, for example.
But I have to explain to central IT all the time about ARM being a
different instruction set and incompatible, and it's taken ages to get
them to stop trying to install stuff remotely on ARM Windows.
ARM Windows does seem to be an ongoing trainwreck, in spite of Microsoft’s
best efforts ...
motk
2024-04-21 23:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Cross
ARM is ready right now. But that's irrelevant;
we'll be dealing with x86 for the next 20 to
30 years, at least. It may loss it's position
as #1 in 10, but it's not going away any time
soon.
ARM64 and X86-64 are both going to be around for decades. ARM is
becoming more interesting in the server space, but is a pretty fractured
ecosystem that requires a lot of coding-to-the-hardware; that said you
can go to AWS or Azure and spin up a nice ARM machine for cheap right
now. It's definitely worth investigating a port; I'm not sure if OpenVMS
is self-hosting enough to cross-compile yet but I suspect there's a lot
of hard-coded C in there.

On the other side, x86s and FRED are worth some serious investigation.
Post by Dan Cross
- Dan C.
--
motk
Dan Cross
2024-04-22 01:22:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by motk
Post by Dan Cross
ARM is ready right now. But that's irrelevant;
we'll be dealing with x86 for the next 20 to
30 years, at least. It may loss it's position
as #1 in 10, but it's not going away any time
soon.
ARM64 and X86-64 are both going to be around for decades. ARM is
becoming more interesting in the server space, but is a pretty fractured
ecosystem that requires a lot of coding-to-the-hardware; that said you
can go to AWS or Azure and spin up a nice ARM machine for cheap right
now. It's definitely worth investigating a port; I'm not sure if OpenVMS
is self-hosting enough to cross-compile yet but I suspect there's a lot
of hard-coded C in there.
On the other side, x86s and FRED are worth some serious investigation.
To be clear: I was not suggesting that VSI port VMS to ARM at
this time. I was merely correcting Arne's mistatements.

- Dan C.
John Dallman
2024-04-18 18:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Just in time for x86 to no longer be quite at the forefront of
server computing, or even computing generally. ARM is having more
of a presence, and RISC-V is not far behind.
x86 is still running a vast majority of server workloads, and
organisation that are running VMS tend to be conservative. Also, when the
x86 port started, Aarch64 was way too new to depend on for a server OS
and RISC-V was in its infancy.

It's still the case that there is a very limited range of Aarch64 server
hardware available for on-premises use, and virtualisation for it is
pretty new. I've been porting and building software for Aarch64 Linux for
a few years, and the ecosystem is nowhere near as mature as x86.

As for RISC-V, who is offering RISC-V 64-bit servers or cloud instances
as of now? I count Scaleway, since early March, but they're bare metal
servers, *not* Linux ready to run. RISC-V has a lot of hype, somewhat
questionable potential, and not very much in service that's suitable for
VMS.

John
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-18 22:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Also, when the x86 port started, Aarch64 was way too new to depend on
for a server OS and RISC-V was in its infancy.
That’s reinforcing my point, about how long ago that was.
John Dallman
2024-04-20 09:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Also, when the x86 port started, Aarch64 was way too new to
depend on for a server OS and RISC-V was in its infancy.
That's reinforcing my point, about how long ago that was.
In spite of how long it has been, a decision to run on ARM at that stage
would still have been fatal now.

John
Dan Cross
2024-04-20 13:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dallman
Also, when the x86 port started, Aarch64 was way too new to
depend on for a server OS and RISC-V was in its infancy.
That's reinforcing my point, about how long ago that was.
In spite of how long it has been, a decision to run on ARM at that stage
would still have been fatal now.
Perhaps. But arguing with the village idiot (this Lawrence guy
who's been spamming most groups I read lately) is unlikely to
sway anyone's opinion.

- Dan C.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-20 22:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dallman
Also, when the x86 port started, Aarch64 was way too new to depend on
for a server OS and RISC-V was in its infancy.
That's reinforcing my point, about how long ago that was.
In spite of how long it has been, a decision to run on ARM at that stage
would still have been fatal now.
It’s not clear that VMS has achieved non-fatality as it is.
Simon Clubley
2024-04-18 12:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
<quote>
- CVE reporting program
About bloody time. :-(

VSI should have done this as soon as they started shipping products.

Don't forget these are the same jokers who _finally_ introduced a
public security reporting mechanism in the immediate aftermath of
the DCL issue and then silently removed it from their website some
time later after the fuss had died down. :-(

I can't even begin to imagine the mentality of people who think that
was an appropriate thing to do.

I wonder what has driven this sudden change and if this will be more
permanent than it was the last time around ?

[snip]
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It may be time-consuming and VSI has limited resources, but given
that >70% of code used in modern solutions is open source code
and because VSI has limited resources, then it very important
for VSI to get the VMS open source collaboration working!!
Don't forget that they now ship Perl as part of the x86-64 kit and
that was only possible because of the work Craig has put into making
the public distribution continue to work on VMS.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Hans Bachner
2024-04-18 14:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
<quote>
- CVE reporting program
About bloody time. :-(
VSI should have done this [...]
A simple "thank you, I've been waiting for this" would have been
sufficient... :-)
Post by Simon Clubley
Simon.
Hans.
Simon Clubley
2024-04-18 18:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Bachner
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
<quote>
- CVE reporting program
About bloody time. :-(
VSI should have done this [...]
A simple "thank you, I've been waiting for this" would have been
sufficient... :-)
Well Hans, there are certain optional things a company can do, and
there are certain expected things the same company _should_ have already
done, especially when they go around claiming that they sell the most
secure operating system on the planet. :-)

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-18 18:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Bachner
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
<quote>
- CVE reporting program
About bloody time. :-(
VSI should have done this [...]
A simple "thank you, I've been waiting for this" would have been
sufficient...   :-)
For some people the glass is half empty not half full.

Arne
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-18 18:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It may be time-consuming and VSI has limited resources, but given
that >70% of code used in modern solutions is open source code
and because VSI has limited resources, then it very important
for VSI to get the VMS open source collaboration working!!
Don't forget that they now ship Perl as part of the x86-64 kit and
that was only possible because of the work Craig has put into making
the public distribution continue to work on VMS.
If I have understood that context correctly, then the end
result is all good, but not really collaboration.

Arne
Craig A. Berry
2024-04-19 02:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It may be time-consuming and VSI has limited resources, but given
that >70% of code used in modern solutions is open source code
and because VSI has limited resources, then it very important
for VSI to get the VMS open source collaboration working!!
Don't forget that they now ship Perl as part of the x86-64 kit and
that was only possible because of the work Craig has put into making
the public distribution continue to work on VMS.
If I have understood that context correctly, then the end
result is all good, but not really collaboration.
Yes and no. I've had cordial correspondence with one of the engineers
and traded tips about some of the initial problems building Perl on x86.
Before that we had exchanges about their adding signing information to
my kits for Alpha and Itanium and releasing those with my blessing.
These things could be construed as a form of collaboration, but mainly
in kitting and distribution, not in porting or maintaining.

But the story with Perl is probably not a model to follow for other
things. I suspect what happened with Perl is that some of the cooks
wanted a longer spoon to stir the soup they were making and just grabbed
one they happened to like, and it's hard to keep the cooks from choosing
some of the tools for their kitchen. There's nothing wrong with that,
but there are other reasons to choose packages worth porting or
distributing, and there are a lot of other things that will be necessary
to create, at the risk of a cliché, an open source ecosystem.

Probably the most important thing for VSI related to open source is to
focus on the basic enabling features that only they can do. That means
finishing SSIO, finishing or reimplementing named pipes, implementing
pthread_sigmask (which is not just a function call but a whole threads +
signals thing), implementing posix_spawn(), implementing a pipe() that
is truly both unbuffered and stream-oriented, and implementing 64-bit
versions of all the CRTL functions that don't have them yet as well as
the system and library calls that are still 32-bit only (yes,
sys$filescan, I'm looking at you). This off the top of my head and no
doubt leaving out a lot of things.

There is probably not much room for collaboration with such core
infrastructure, but something akin to GNV or analogous toolset will be
necessary as well in order to build anything else, and there always have
been at least a few people willing to participate in porting and
maintaining those things.

Higher up the application chain, better collaboration seems both
possible and necessary. I infer from reports of the recent French
workshop that JFP and VSI were both working on getting Python onto x86
but without collaborating. Oops. Lets hope that gets sorted out, and
that when VSI is looking at maintaining ports of PHP, or OpenSSL, or
whatever, that it works with the people who are already doing those things.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-19 14:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by Arne Vajhøj
It may be time-consuming and VSI has limited resources, but given
that >70% of code used in modern solutions is open source code
and because VSI has limited resources, then it very important
for VSI to get the VMS open source collaboration working!!
Don't forget that they now ship Perl as part of the x86-64 kit and
that was only possible because of the work Craig has put into making
the public distribution continue to work on VMS.
If I have understood that context correctly, then the end
result is all good, but not really collaboration.
Yes and no.  I've had cordial correspondence with one of the engineers
and traded tips about some of the initial problems building Perl on x86.
Before that we had exchanges about their adding signing information to
my kits for Alpha and Itanium and releasing those with my blessing.
These things could be construed as a form of collaboration, but mainly
in kitting and distribution, not in porting or maintaining.
But the story with Perl is probably not a model to follow for other
things.  I suspect what happened with Perl is that some of the cooks
wanted a longer spoon to stir the soup they were making and just grabbed
one they happened to like, and it's hard to keep the cooks from choosing
some of the tools for their kitchen.  There's nothing wrong with that,
but there are other reasons to choose packages worth porting or
distributing, and there are a lot of other things that will be necessary
to create, at the risk of a cliché, an open source ecosystem.
Higher up the application chain, better collaboration seems both
possible and necessary.  I infer from reports of the recent French
workshop that JFP and VSI were both working on getting Python onto x86
but without collaborating.  Oops.  Lets hope that gets sorted out, and
that when VSI is looking at maintaining ports of PHP, or OpenSSL, or
whatever, that it works with the people who are already doing those things.
To me it seems like first step is to have a single source repo.

Optimal:
* single upstream repo
* both VSI contributors and community contributors use that
* community contributors can do a build and distribute a ZIP
* VSI can do a build and distribute a PCSI kit for those customers
that only install VSI approved software on their VMS system
(I suspect that mentality will be dying out, but there are probably
still some left)

Almost optimal:
* upstream repo
* VMS repo shared by VSI contributors and community contributors
* community contributors can do a build and distribute a ZIP
that everyone can grab
* VSI can do a build and distribute a PCSI kit for those customers
that only install VSI approved software on their VMS system
(I suspect that mentality will be dying out, but there are probably
still some left)

Disaster:
* upstream repo
* VSI repo used by VSI contributors
* N repo's used by N community contributors
* signficant differences between builds from different repos
Probably the most important thing for VSI related to open source is to
focus on the basic enabling features that only they can do. That means
finishing SSIO, finishing or reimplementing named pipes, implementing
pthread_sigmask (which is not just a function call but a whole threads +
signals thing), implementing posix_spawn(), implementing a pipe() that
is truly both unbuffered and stream-oriented, and implementing 64-bit
versions of all the CRTL functions that don't have them yet as well as
the system and library calls that are still 32-bit only (yes,
sys$filescan, I'm looking at you). This off the top of my head and no
doubt leaving out a lot of things.
There is probably not much room for collaboration with such core
infrastructure, but something akin to GNV or analogous toolset will be
necessary as well in order to build anything else, and there always have
been at least a few people willing to participate in porting and
maintaining those things.
The required OS and compiler functionality to support (mostly)
open source C code coming from *nix world is obviously on VSI.

The good thing is that it is limited in scope. The bad thing is
that some of this can be tricky if the desired functionality
is based on *nix system design and does not really fit well with
VMS system design.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-19 22:13:14 UTC
Permalink
The bad thing is that
some of this can be tricky if the desired functionality is based on *nix
system design and does not really fit well with VMS system design.
The reality is that *nix (particularly Linux) has become the de-facto
standard for an OS layer. Even Microsoft has been forced to accept this,
hence the introduction of WSL.

Could VSI come up with a WSL equivalent?
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-19 23:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The bad thing is that
some of this can be tricky if the desired functionality is based on *nix
system design and does not really fit well with VMS system design.
The reality is that *nix (particularly Linux) has become the de-facto
standard for an OS layer. Even Microsoft has been forced to accept this,
hence the introduction of WSL.
Could VSI come up with a WSL equivalent?
MS invented WSL to allow developers to build and test Linux
applications on Windows.

VSI has no interest in trying to make developers
build and test Linux applications their code on VMS.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-20 00:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The bad thing is that some of this can be tricky if the desired
functionality is based on *nix system design and does not really fit
well with VMS system design.
The reality is that *nix (particularly Linux) has become the de-facto
standard for an OS layer. Even Microsoft has been forced to accept
this, hence the introduction of WSL.
Could VSI come up with a WSL equivalent?
MS invented WSL to allow developers to build and test Linux applications
on Windows.
Why did they need to? It was because developers are developing Linux
applications in preference to Windows ones, and this was a last-ditch
attempt to keep at least some of that business on Windows.
VSI has no interest in trying to make developers build and test Linux
applications their code on VMS.
But you have all this code that already runs on Linux and other *nix, that
you would like to have on VMS, don’t you? You yourself said above, about
how “the desired functionality is based on *nix system design and does not
really fit well with VMS system design”. What else are you supposed to do
if you want that code on VMS?
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-20 00:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
The bad thing is that some of this can be tricky if the desired
functionality is based on *nix system design and does not really fit
well with VMS system design.
The reality is that *nix (particularly Linux) has become the de-facto
standard for an OS layer. Even Microsoft has been forced to accept
this, hence the introduction of WSL.
Could VSI come up with a WSL equivalent?
MS invented WSL to allow developers to build and test Linux applications
on Windows.
Why did they need to? It was because developers are developing Linux
applications in preference to Windows ones, and this was a last-ditch
attempt to keep at least some of that business on Windows.
There are a lot of those.

But there are also another large group: those that develop for
both Linux and Windows.
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
VSI has no interest in trying to make developers build and test Linux
applications their code on VMS.
But you have all this code that already runs on Linux and other *nix, that
you would like to have on VMS, don’t you? You yourself said above, about
how “the desired functionality is based on *nix system design and does not
really fit well with VMS system design”. What else are you supposed to do
if you want that code on VMS?
It is not a big secret that there are a lot more code running on
Linux than on VMS.

But remember that WSL 2 is just a VM with some fancy integration stuff
to make development smooth. The Linux applications just runs in a
Linux VM.

I am sure that a lot of VMS customers will have Linux VM's around
running Linux applications. But that has little to do with VMS and
VSI.

What is relevant for VSI and VMS is porting those applications to
run on VMS.

In some cases that will require changes to VMS and C RTL.

And it is not always easy because VMS and Linux are different.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-20 07:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But remember that WSL 2 is just a VM with some fancy integration stuff
to make development smooth. The Linux applications just runs in a Linux
VM.
It’s there just so Microsoft can claim that software written for Linux is
running on a Windows desktop.

If VSI can do the same, it too can claim that software written for Linux
is running on a VMS desktop.
John Dallman
2024-04-20 09:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
If VSI can do the same, it too can claim that software written for
Linux is running on a VMS desktop.
Ah, I thought you meant getting VMS running in VMs on Windows desktops.
That might actually be useful; VSI regard VMS' role as being purely for
servers these days, and aren't trying to support desktops.

John
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-20 22:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Dallman
Ah, I thought you meant getting VMS running in VMs on Windows desktops.
That might actually be useful ...
We can already do that with SIMH.
motk
2024-04-22 00:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by John Dallman
Ah, I thought you meant getting VMS running in VMs on Windows desktops.
That might actually be useful ...
We can already do that with SIMH.
Sadly, not without grooming the internet for pakgen or whatever.
--
motk
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-22 02:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by motk
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
We can already do that with SIMH.
Sadly, not without grooming the internet for pakgen or whatever.
That’s easy to find. I also did a cleaned-up version of the C code, and a
Python version with some extra capabilities.

I keep wondering if I shouldn’t post them somewhere ...
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-20 12:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But remember that WSL 2 is just a VM with some fancy integration stuff
to make development smooth. The Linux applications just runs in a Linux
VM.
It’s there just so Microsoft can claim that software written for Linux is
running on a Windows desktop.
No. It is for developers.
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
If VSI can do the same, it too can claim that software written for Linux
is running on a VMS desktop.
VSI is not targeting the desktop market at all.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-20 22:37:13 UTC
Permalink
No. [WSL] is for developers.
It may be now, but how long do you think it will stay that way? It seems
very likely that, at some point, WSL will become a mandatory part of a
Windows install.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-20 23:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
No. [WSL] is for developers.
It may be now, but how long do you think it will stay that way? It seems
very likely that, at some point, WSL will become a mandatory part of a
Windows install.
Not likely.

Nobody will want to run server apps in WSL for production. There
are more suitable ways to run Windows and Linux on same
box whether it is VMWare ESXi, KVM or (plain) Hyper-V.

And for desktop then the general users have no interest
in anything Linux.

Arne
Chris Townley
2024-04-20 23:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Not likely.
Nobody will want to run server apps in WSL for production. There
are more suitable ways to run Windows and Linux on same
box whether it is VMWare ESXi, KVM or (plain) Hyper-V.
And for desktop then the general users have no interest
in anything Linux.
Arne
Arne - don't feed the troll!

Shame we can't get him banned - that is the advantage of forums!
--
Chris
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-21 02:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
No. [WSL] is for developers.
It may be now, but how long do you think it will stay that way? It
seems very likely that, at some point, WSL will become a mandatory part
of a Windows install.
Not likely.
Think of how difficult and expensive it is for Microsoft to continue
developing Windows as a stand-alone OS. Clearly the profit isn’t there any
more, as witness the deteriorating quality of Windows releases, and even
the quality of the patches to fix up the problems, which often end up
causing their own problems.

It would be following the path of least resistance to rely more and more
on the Linux kernel, and let the Windows kernel itself gradually wither
away.
Arne Vajhøj
2024-04-21 02:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro
No. [WSL] is for developers.
It may be now, but how long do you think it will stay that way? It
seems very likely that, at some point, WSL will become a mandatory part
of a Windows install.
Not likely.
Think of how difficult and expensive it is for Microsoft to continue
developing Windows as a stand-alone OS. Clearly the profit isn’t there any
more,
Windows is still a cash cow for MS.

Windows maintenance cost must be like 1% of Windows revenue.

Arne
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
2024-04-21 02:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Windows is still a cash cow for MS.
If it was, you would think their ongoing investment would be commensurate
with that.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Windows maintenance cost must be like 1% of Windows revenue.
Then why have they had to cut back on QA so much? Windows users
increasingly feel like they are beta testers for Microsoft, and they even
have to pay for the privilege.
motk
2024-04-18 22:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
I wonder what has driven this sudden change and if this will be more
permanent than it was the last time around ?
It's odd it's not there. Corporate insurance for 'cyber' issues,
absolutely vital in any banking or finance environment. You need to be
able to demonstrate you have clear standards for managing CVE issues
that Qualys or Tenable throw at you, or else. The CVE industry is just a
snake farm, nevertheless it's not something you can ignore.
--
motk
Simon Clubley
2024-04-22 12:19:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by motk
Post by Simon Clubley
I wonder what has driven this sudden change and if this will be more
permanent than it was the last time around ?
It's odd it's not there. Corporate insurance for 'cyber' issues,
absolutely vital in any banking or finance environment. You need to be
able to demonstrate you have clear standards for managing CVE issues
that Qualys or Tenable throw at you, or else.
Tell me about it. :-(

When I dealt with VSI over my DCL findings, the engineers were great but
the management were useless (apart from the excellent guy who they brought
in to advise them and who quit ~3 months later). You would have thought
that VSI management would have learnt lessons in the aftermath of that.

My guess is that enough customers have finally forced VSI management to
comply with the expected industry standards.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
David Goodwin
2024-04-19 05:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by vmsgenerations
We have just posted today the report(s) of our last "rendez-vous autour
de VMS".
The detailed report is translated in english. The slides from IMPERVA
about security directive NIS2, and from COMMVAULT  about their products
are mostly in english.
https://www.vmsgenerations.fr/rendez-vous-autour-de-vms-du-6-fevrier-2024/
<quote>
- for HITRUST certification is targetted in spring
- CVE reporting program
- partial NIST-2 compliance
- study for ISO 27001 certification
</quote>
sounds good.
<quote>
"X86 is the future of VMS, so the sooner you start thinking about
migration the better. We're
sharing links to all the resources to help you. We look forward to
helping you with your
migration".
...
Q: Examples of migration to x86?
...
A: HF: Yes, around 80 to 100 customers in the evaluation, test or
migration phase.
</quote>
That number need to x10 in 2024.
<quote>
R DZ: Can you explain the type of collaboration you're expecting?
R GC: Python example: no collaboration with one of the French
specialists (JFP). We ended
up with two channels that were moving forward without collaborating. We
had problems
receiving sources in a standard format. There are now opensource
products in the VSI
catalog, and it would be great to be able to participate in development
as we do with any
other opensource. Currently, participation in opensource development
related to VMS is
virtually closed. It's different from standard opensource. With VSI, the
answer is "we don't
have the resources to do it". VSI has been around for 10 years... it's
time to change that
</quote>
I think this is important.
It may be time-consuming and VSI has limited resources, but given
that >70% of code used in modern solutions is open source code
and because VSI has limited resources, then it very important
for VSI to get the VMS open source collaboration working!!
Shame they seem to be actively working in the opposite direction. The
current licensing situation isn't likely to encourage any sort of open-
source community to form so if its important they're probably going to
have to do it themselves.
Loading...