Posts

[Single Stage to Orbit]

Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?

[chrisq]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?

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

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?

Because, in the words of Q, "it has all been said".

There's absolutely nothing new to talk about. This newsgroup has a lot
of off topic (or loosely related to VMS) discussions, but without those
discussions this newsgroup would be mostly dead. VMS these days is a static
known system, with no new functionality coming along. All the answers
that people need can probably be searched for.

In a couple of months it will be 10 years since the port of VMS to x86-64
VMS started, and at various points during that decade, many people have
clearly been unable to wait any longer and have found alternatives outside
of VMS. The discussions here are only a fraction of what they were even
a few years ago.

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

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

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

Simon.

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?

Because, in the words of Q, "it has all been said".
There's absolutely nothing new to talk about. This newsgroup has a lot
of off topic (or loosely related to VMS) discussions, but without those
discussions this newsgroup would be mostly dead. VMS these days is a static
known system, with no new functionality coming along. All the answers
that people need can probably be searched for.
In a couple of months it will be 10 years since the port of VMS to x86-64
VMS started, and at various points during that decade, many people have
clearly been unable to wait any longer and have found alternatives outside
of VMS. The discussions here are only a fraction of what they were even
a few years ago.

There are lot of things to talk about.

Lots of potential questions regarding VMS system management
or VMS programming.

(the non-system-manager and non-programmer VMS user is probably a
thing of the past)

The fact that the answer may be in some documentation and
possibly even be googleable does not mean no questions.
Questions are asked by humans not perfect search bots.

There has been a few new things in VMS x86-64 and VMS 9.x.

And as soon as VMS x86-64 has everything that VMS Itanium
had, then I would expect many more new features to be added.

No technical reasons for low activity.

But most readers (and potential posters) probably come
because they are interested in VMS.

And they don't think it is fun reading posts from people
with little interest in VMS talking about non-VMS things.

Arne

[chrisq]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Why do we go for days without anything being posted in this newsgroup?

Because, in the words of Q, "it has all been said".
There's absolutely nothing new to talk about. This newsgroup has a lot
of off topic (or loosely related to VMS) discussions, but without those
discussions this newsgroup would be mostly dead. VMS these days is a static
known system, with no new functionality coming along. All the answers
that people need can probably be searched for.
In a couple of months it will be 10 years since the port of VMS to x86-64
VMS started, and at various points during that decade, many people have
clearly been unable to wait any longer and have found alternatives outside
of VMS. The discussions here are only a fraction of what they were even
a few years ago.

There are lot of things to talk about.
Lots of potential questions regarding VMS system management
or VMS programming.
(the non-system-manager and non-programmer VMS user is probably a
thing of the past)
The fact that the answer may be in some documentation and
possibly even be googleable does not mean no questions.
Questions are asked by humans not perfect search bots.
There has been a few new things in VMS x86-64 and VMS 9.x.
And as soon as VMS x86-64 has everything that VMS Itanium
had, then I would expect many more new features to be added.
No technical reasons for low activity.
But most readers (and potential posters) probably come
because they are interested in VMS.
And they don't think it is fun reading posts from people
with little interest in VMS talking about non-VMS things.
Arne

It's partly a reflection of the decline of text only usenet generally,
as more more recent and feature rich discussion platforms take over.
The provision of good editors for posts, the ability to post image and
other files inline makes a big difference as well. usenet belongs to
a different age and always was a bit clunky anyway, but served it's
purpose well in the terminal and teletype interface age.

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

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

Chris

[Robert Komar]

I wonder how many left usenet in disgust during the spam barrage
a few months ago? Many other newsgroups have grown quiet at
the same time.

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

Cheers,
Rob Komar

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Robert Komar
I wonder how many left usenet in disgust during the spam barrage
a few months ago? Many other newsgroups have grown quiet at
the same time.

That's a very good point. I had forgotten about that.

Simon.

[bill]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Robert Komar
I wonder how many left usenet in disgust during the spam barrage
a few months ago? Many other newsgroups have grown quiet at
the same time.

That's a very good point. I had forgotten about that.
Simon.

If you had a decent news server rather than using something free
(you get what you pay for!!) there was little if any SPAM barrage.
It only took mine (for a whopping $10 a year) about three days to
figure it out and end it.

bill

[Michael S]

On Fri, 24 May 2024 08:48:47 -0400

Post by bill

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Robert Komar
I wonder how many left usenet in disgust during the spam barrage
a few months ago? Many other newsgroups have grown quiet at
the same time.

That's a very good point. I had forgotten about that.
Simon.

If you had a decent news server rather than using something free
(you get what you pay for!!) there was little if any SPAM barrage.
It only took mine (for a whopping $10 a year) about three days to
figure it out and end it.
bill

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

[Single Stage to Orbit]

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

Once they limited the hobbyist programme to just the VMDKs on a yearly
basis, that was it. I'm not feeling very hopeful now.

Now they can't get the feedback on result when people do the kicking
the tyres on OpenVMS and testing all these lovely software packages off
their portal any more.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Once they limited the hobbyist programme to just the VMDKs on a yearly
basis, that was it. I'm not feeling very hopeful now.
Now they can't get the feedback on result when people do the kicking
the tyres on OpenVMS and testing all these lovely software packages off
their portal any more.

I believe that the changes to the CL program was a big step in
the wrong direction (I posted a long rant about it when it
happened).

But I am not convinced that it is the main reason for
c.o.v/I-V "decline".

Arne

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Once they limited the hobbyist programme to just the VMDKs on a yearly
basis, that was it. I'm not feeling very hopeful now.
Now they can't get the feedback on result when people do the kicking
the tyres on OpenVMS and testing all these lovely software packages off
their portal any more.

I believe that the changes to the CL program was a big step in
the wrong direction (I posted a long rant about it when it
happened).
But I am not convinced that it is the main reason for
c.o.v/I-V "decline".

Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.

VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

2 years ? 5 years ? 10 years ?

Simon.

[Single Stage to Orbit]

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.

Most believe that it is totally impossible.

VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.

The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

Arne

[Single Stage to Orbit]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.

Now much is it for a personal licence?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 5/22/2024 12:52 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:> Now much is it for
a personal licence?

I am not sure that I understand the question.

VSI got:
* commercial licenses
* ISV licenses
* VMS Ambassador licenses
* Community licenses

Do you mean what VSI charge for a commercial license for
a "hobbyist sized system"?

No idea. But I am sure that ***@vmssoftware.com could
provide a quote. New licenses are "per year" according to
previous discussions.

I suspect that it is more expensive than what a hobbyist
would want to pay. And I also suspect that you would need to
pay extra for a lot of things.

Arne

[Single Stage to Orbit]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
On 5/22/2024 12:52 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:> Now much is it for
a personal licence?
I am not sure that I understand the question.
* commercial licenses
* ISV licenses
* VMS Ambassador licenses
* Community licenses
Do you mean what VSI charge for a commercial license for
a "hobbyist sized system"?
provide a quote. New licenses are "per year" according to
previous discussions.
I suspect that it is more expensive than what a hobbyist
would want to pay. And I also suspect that you would need to
pay extra for a lot of things.

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

[bill]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Arne Vajhøj
On 5/22/2024 12:52 PM, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:> Now much is it for
a personal licence?
I am not sure that I understand the question.
* commercial licenses
* ISV licenses
* VMS Ambassador licenses
* Community licenses
Do you mean what VSI charge for a commercial license for
a "hobbyist sized system"?
provide a quote. New licenses are "per year" according to
previous discussions.
I suspect that it is more expensive than what a hobbyist
would want to pay. And I also suspect that you would need to
pay extra for a lot of things.

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

There are many classes of businesses that do not publish simple
price lists. Believe it or not, their real customer base do not
find it annoying or even strange.

bill

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.

I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.

BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.

Simon.

[David Wade]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.

I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.

IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition

but no idea how to order

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Simon.

Dave

[Simon Clubley]

Post by David Wade

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.

I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.

IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition
but no idea how to order

I didn't know about that thanks.

I initially was interested until I read this:

https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/ibm/ibm-offer-zos-app-development-and-testing-its-public-cloud

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

Pity it wasn't closer to the Tru64 hobbyist pricing that was once offered.

Thanks for the link anyway however.

Simon.

[bill]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by David Wade

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.

I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.

IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition
but no idea how to order

I didn't know about that thanks.
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/ibm/ibm-offer-zos-app-development-and-testing-its-public-cloud

That's not a hobbyist program.

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

If your in the business of developing and selling zOS programs $5,000
is not much of an expense. Especially when, like any other business
expense, you get to write it off.

Post by Simon Clubley
Pity it wasn't closer to the Tru64 hobbyist pricing that was once offered.

It's not a hobbyist program.

Post by Simon Clubley
Thanks for the link anyway however.

bill

[Simon Clubley]

Post by bill

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by David Wade

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.

I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.

IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition
but no idea how to order

I didn't know about that thanks.
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/ibm/ibm-offer-zos-app-development-and-testing-its-public-cloud

That's not a hobbyist program.

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

Simon.

[David Wade]

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by David Wade

Post by Simon Clubley

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
It's annoying that they don't have pricings on their website. I'd love
to see if they can sell personal licenses.

I suspect IBM will sell you a personal non-commercial licence for z/OS
long before VSI get around to doing the same thing.
BTW, IBM have absolutely no plans for such a thing unfortunately, even
though it has been asked for many times.

IBM do offer a personal edition of their developers package...
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zdt/14.2.x?topic=personal-edition
but no idea how to order

I didn't know about that thanks.
https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/ibm/ibm-offer-zos-app-development-and-testing-its-public-cloud
Apparently the price is in excess of $5,000. Yeah, I am NOT paying that...

There was a Learners edition which I gather was $120/month.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220222235516/https://ibm.github.io/zdt-learners-edition-about/

Post by Simon Clubley
Pity it wasn't closer to the Tru64 hobbyist pricing that was once offered.
Thanks for the link anyway however.
Simon.

Dave

[David Wade]

Post by David Wade
There was a Learners edition which I gather was $120/month.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220222235516/https://ibm.github.io/zdt-learners-edition-about/

Post by Simon Clubley
Pity it wasn't closer to the Tru64 hobbyist pricing that was once offered.
Thanks for the link anyway however.
Simon.

Actually the IBM web sites says the Learners Edition will return

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

scroll down to the FAQ which says:-

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

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

Post by David Wade
Dave

Dave

[David Goodwin]

In article <664dfc17$0$705$***@news.sunsite.dk>, ***@vajhoej.dk
says...

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?

And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI. The only remaining value OpenVMS holds
for HPE is whatever fees VSI is currently paying - probably not a vast
sum as far as HPEs income sources go.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?

All.

Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.

And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12
months to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years
to get the last 4% replaces with open source.

And that was when it was pushed by the CEO. I do not expect
that Neri would push for HPE open sourcing VMS the same way.

It was not cheap in 2014 either. But back then there was some
benefits too - there were customer commitments that HP/HPE could
shift over to VSI.

Post by David Goodwin
And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI.

Still work with no benefits.

Arne

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Arne Vajhøj
I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12 months
to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years to get the last
4% replaces with open source.

And then Oracle sued Google over it anyway.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Post by Arne Vajhøj
I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12 months
to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years to get the last
4% replaces with open source.

And then Oracle sued Google over it anyway.

No.

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

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

Arne

[David Goodwin]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?

All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.

HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and
build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).

I don't see how that is all that different from releasing the source
code to everyone and allowing everyone to take that code and build new
things on top of it (Open OpenVMS).

Either way you're distributing the code to someone other than HPE
employees and you'd have to be certain you had the right to sublicense
any 3rd party code under your chosen terms before doing that.

Given HPE hasn't added anything new since they conducted that review,
HPEs rights at this point should be known and additional reviews
shouldn't be necessary.

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

Post by Arne Vajhøj
I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12
months to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years
to get the last 4% replaces with open source.
And that was when it was pushed by the CEO. I do not expect
that Neri would push for HPE open sourcing VMS the same way.
It was not cheap in 2014 either. But back then there was some
benefits too - there were customer commitments that HP/HPE could
shift over to VSI.

Post by David Goodwin
And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI.

Still work with no benefits.

Presumably if that ever happened it would be a case of VSI buying
OpenVMS from HPE outright so the benefit would be in the being paid for
it.

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

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?

All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and
build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).

HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.

VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.

Post by David Goodwin
I don't see how that is all that different from releasing the source
code to everyone and allowing everyone to take that code and build new
things on top of it (Open OpenVMS).

Huge difference.

Like the difference between closed source and open source.

Post by David Goodwin
Either way you're distributing the code to someone other than HPE
employees and you'd have to be certain you had the right to sublicense
any 3rd party code under your chosen terms before doing that.

They certainly had to do some work.

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

Post by David Goodwin
Given HPE hasn't added anything new since they conducted that review,
HPEs rights at this point should be known and additional reviews
shouldn't be necessary.

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

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin
And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI.

Still work with no benefits.

Presumably if that ever happened it would be a case of VSI buying
OpenVMS from HPE outright so the benefit would be in the being paid for
it.

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

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

Arne

[David Goodwin]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?

All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and
build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).

HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.
VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.

But HPE gave all of the OpenVMS *source code* to to VSI under some
license, a license that was different from any that had previously been
applied to this source code. Any 3rd party code present was either
sublicensed to VSI or removed and maybe provided in binary form only.

For HPE to do this they had to do some work to figure out what they
could and what they couldn't hand over. HPE had to be sure of their own
rights before they could grant any rights to VSI. And they had to remove
anything they weren't allowed to distribute, or go back to whoever owns
the code and get permission to sublicense it to VSI.

I don't see how that work is any less than what HPE would have to do to
open source it. I guess if you're open-sourcing it you might want to
search for and remove any insults from the code? But thats probably not
strictly necessary.

Also, didn't DEC/Compaq actually publish some substantial part of the
OpenVMS codebase on Microfiche and CD-ROM? So presumably they would have
had pretty good records on what was fit for public release and what
wasn't.

Semi-related, is there actually much 3rd party code in OpenVMS beyond
X11, Motif and CDE (all things that are open-source today anyway)?

[Craig A. Berry]

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?

All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and
build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).

HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.
VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.

But HPE gave all of the OpenVMS *source code* to to VSI under some
license, a license that was different from any that had previously been
applied to this source code. Any 3rd party code present was either
sublicensed to VSI or removed and maybe provided in binary form only.
For HPE to do this they had to do some work to figure out what they
could and what they couldn't hand over. HPE had to be sure of their own
rights before they could grant any rights to VSI. And they had to remove
anything they weren't allowed to distribute, or go back to whoever owns
the code and get permission to sublicense it to VSI.
I don't see how that work is any less than what HPE would have to do to
open source it. I guess if you're open-sourcing it you might want to
search for and remove any insults from the code? But thats probably not
strictly necessary.
Also, didn't DEC/Compaq actually publish some substantial part of the
OpenVMS codebase on Microfiche and CD-ROM? So presumably they would have
had pretty good records on what was fit for public release and what
wasn't.
Semi-related, is there actually much 3rd party code in OpenVMS beyond
X11, Motif and CDE (all things that are open-source today anyway)?

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

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

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and
build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).

HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.
VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.

But HPE gave all of the OpenVMS *source code* to to VSI under some
license, a license that was different from any that had previously been
applied to this source code. Any 3rd party code present was either
sublicensed to VSI or removed and maybe provided in binary form only.
For HPE to do this they had to do some work to figure out what they
could and what they couldn't hand over. HPE had to be sure of their own
rights before they could grant any rights to VSI. And they had to remove
anything they weren't allowed to distribute, or go back to whoever owns
the code and get permission to sublicense it to VSI.
I don't see how that work is any less than what HPE would have to do to
open source it. I guess if you're open-sourcing it you might want to
search for and remove any insults from the code? But thats probably not
strictly necessary.

It was not less work - it was different work.

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

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

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

Post by David Goodwin
Also, didn't DEC/Compaq actually publish some substantial part of the
OpenVMS codebase on Microfiche and CD-ROM? So presumably they would have
had pretty good records on what was fit for public release and what
wasn't.

They did.

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

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

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

https://opensource.org/osd

Arne

[bill]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and
build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).

HPE does not have a say about VSI source code.
VSI got the license to sell binaries that include HPE code. How much
VSI code those binaries contains are less important. And the answer
depends a lot on whether 8.4-2Lx or 9.x anyway.

But HPE gave all of the OpenVMS *source code* to to VSI under some
license, a license that was different from any that had previously been
applied to this source code. Any 3rd party code present was either
sublicensed to VSI or removed and maybe provided in binary form only.
For HPE to do this they had to do some work to figure out what they
could and what they couldn't hand over. HPE had to be sure of their own
rights before they could grant any rights to VSI. And they had to remove
anything they weren't allowed to distribute, or go back to whoever owns
the code and get permission to sublicense it to VSI.
I don't see how that work is any less than what HPE would have to do to
open source it. I guess if you're open-sourcing it you might want to
search for and remove any insults from the code? But thats probably not
strictly necessary.

It was not less work - it was different work.
The right to give source code to VSI for use in VMS is one thing.
The right to open source the code so that everybody can use it
for whatever is another thing.
If company X owns some code used in VMS, then VSI may automatically
be permitted to use it in VMS if the original contract was worded for
it, or they may have needed a permission, which X would give either
for money or because they had other business reasons to do HPE a favor.
It is extremely unlikely that X would give HPE permission to give
X's source code away to the entire world.

Post by David Goodwin
Also, didn't DEC/Compaq actually publish some substantial part of the
OpenVMS codebase on Microfiche and CD-ROM? So presumably they would have
had pretty good records on what was fit for public release and what
wasn't.

They did.

Actually, I believe it hinges on the word "publish".
The source was not "published", it was provided to
certain paying customers with very strict rules.
Like they weren't actually to let just anybody look at it.

Post by Arne Vajhøj
But "source available" and "open source" are two very
different concepts.
"source available" just makes it possible to study the source.
"open source" gives people the right to use the source code.
https://opensource.org/osd
Arne

bill

[bill]

Post by David Goodwin

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by David Goodwin
says...

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

That idea has come up numerous times.
Most believe that it is totally impossible.
VSI does not own the rights to all of VMS. VSI has a license
from HPE for the old parts of VMS and own the right to the
new parts of VMS that they have added.
The chance of getting HPE to approve open sourcing the stuff
they own are close to zero. Only cost - no benefits.

What costs would there be for HPE beyond those already paid as part of
figuring what, if anything, they could sublicense to VSI?

All.
Whether HP/HPE can give VSI a license to sell VMS binaries similar
to how HP/HPE sold them and whether HPE can release the source code
as open source under license XYZ are two different questions.
And with supposedly 25 million lines, then it will require a significant
software engineering and legal effort.

But HP/HPE didn't just give VSI a license to sell binaries.
HP/HPE released source code to VSI and allowed VSI to take that code and
build new things on top of it (VSI OpenVMS).
I don't see how that is all that different from releasing the source
code to everyone and allowing everyone to take that code and build new
things on top of it (Open OpenVMS).

Because VSI, undoubtedy, signed a very strict NDA in order to do this.

Post by David Goodwin
Either way you're distributing the code to someone other than HPE
employees and you'd have to be certain you had the right to sublicense
any 3rd party code under your chosen terms before doing that.

They are distributing licensed copies of binaries. No source contained.
Question, I am sure everyone here remembers the Microfiche Listings.
(Which could not actually be used to actually build VMS.)
Does VSI offer anything similar?

Post by David Goodwin
Given HPE hasn't added anything new since they conducted that review,
HPEs rights at this point should be known and additional reviews
shouldn't be necessary.

How much of a revue depends greatly on what the agreement is. That's
how lawyers make all their money.

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

Post by Arne Vajhøj
I think many underestimate the effort it takes to open source
proprietary code. There is a well known example. Sun Java -> OpenJDK.
That was a top-priority of the new Sun CEO. But it still took 12
months to release 96% of the code. And it took a few more years
to get the last 4% replaces with open source.
And that was when it was pushed by the CEO. I do not expect
that Neri would push for HPE open sourcing VMS the same way.
It was not cheap in 2014 either. But back then there was some
benefits too - there were customer commitments that HP/HPE could
shift over to VSI.

Post by David Goodwin
And of course HPE could just wash their hands of OpenVMS and transfer
the copyrights entirely to VSI.

Still work with no benefits.

Presumably if that ever happened it would be a case of VSI buying
OpenVMS from HPE outright so the benefit would be in the being paid for
it.

In which case the cost would likely be totally prohibitive.

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

Of course, based on the comments we see here over and over again, if
it were doable what is the reason HPe hasn't just thrown the source
out there. Heck, they throw it to the public domain. The FSF is not
the only way to open source something.

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

Probably combined with the fact that the source was probably stolen
years ago anyway. :-)

bill

[bill]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?

When it gets to that point I /really/ would like them to put it into
the public domain and let us the hackers add drivers and other things
to run it bare metal.

And, for more reasons than you can even imagine, that can never happen.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Simon Clubley
Another reason could be that many VMS systems have reached the end
of their life and, for various reasons, many have now been replaced
with non-VMS solutions.
VMS is clearly in a managed decline situation, but the real question
is just how rapid is that decline before there isn't a large enough
userbase left to remain viable ?
2 years ? 5 years ? 10 years ?

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

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

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

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

The little we hear about VSI finances sound good.

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

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

Arne