Re: Why OpenVMS is better than linux ...
From: none (@-@(none))Date: 11/14/02
- Next message: Jens Schreiber: "Re: iptables + limit module"
- Previous message: Michael Erskine: "Re: I've been hacked...tips for a postmortem?"
- Maybe in reply to: Luke Vogel: "Re: Why OpenVMS is better than linux ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: jdj <""\"\"\"@-@(none)> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:51:15 -0800
Bob Ceculski wrote:
> Why OpenVMS ?
>
> OpenVMS is the most well designed computer operating system in the
> world. It is very popular in environments where stability,
> reliability, high performance, disaster tolerance, security,
> scalebility and clustering are required.
>
And constrains users to strict limits and specific operating procedures
as defined or permitted by IT.
And prevents users from installing "unapproved" software.
> Here are some facts:
from some guy in sales
>
> Multi-user interactive user support, full shared-resources clustering,
> uptime, robust file system with individual volume limits circa one
> terabyte (and thousands of volumes), huge system performance and
> application scaling, networked GUI interface, 64-bit flat virtual
> addressing, built-in tools for local backup and recovery, far better
> "DLL-like" support for modular coding and distributions, built-in
> record management support (heirarchical database), rolling upgrades of
> layered products and the operating system in cluster environments
> (continuous uptime, even with software upgrades), built-in batch-print
> capabilities, support for a variety of networking protocols (COM, SMB,
> NFS, IP, DECnet, X.25, http, etc), remote network system logins,
> built-in system dump and analysis facilities, built-in multi-user
> security and auditing, built-in multiple and mixed-language
> programming capabilities, good documentation, orderable CD-ROM source
> listings of the operating system internals and source code, process
> and engineering that targets the avoidance of introducing security
> problems and typical virus infection paths, built-in system tuning
> tools, built-in application debugging and application dump tools,
> support for symmetric multiprocessing environments of up to 32 CPUs in
> a single system (and up to 96+ nodes in a cluster), built-in standard
> product installation tools and associated product installation
> packaging tools, a central goal of upward-compatibility of user-mode
> applications and tools over OpenVMS releases, support for systems with
> 256 gigabytes of physical memory, available full operating system and
> hardware support from a single source, powerfull and easy to use
> no-nonsense user interface, etc.
Yes, yes, VMS is and has long been a wonderful system. You state the
obvious.
> Continuous OpenVMS system uptimes of over ten years are not unheard
> of. Some of these systems -- those configured in clusters -- can be
> running current OpenVMS releases, with very long cluster uptimes, with
> the rolling-upgrade capabilities.
OpenVMS is not ten years old. Yet.
> OpenVMS has more than 450,000 installed systems with over 10 million
> users.
So? How many VMS systems are sitting idle or shut down with valid licenses?
How many user licenses are being unused or underused?
One company with many VAXen shut down most of them while licenses were
active. They are still counted as "installed systems".
> OpenVMS is the #1 rated operating system in the healthcare industry.
misleading.
Ratings don't mean a fraction of squat. Windoze is the os of choice
with IBM's systems a close second in the "healthcare industry".
Just because it may be deemed the best does not mean it is the most used
or popular, etc.
> More than 90% of the world's CPU chips are manufactured on lines
> running OpenVMS.
Misleading.
Workstream and Promis, the two most popular packages for work flow,
inventory and factory management were originally written for VMS on
VAX-11's. Both are moving away from VMS to unix and other distributed
systems because VMS and VAXen do fail from time to time and halt
factories' production until they are fixed. Having a centralized
computer system really sucks when you're losing a million dollars or
more per hour when work stops because it's down.
Process control systems are moving more away from VMS to unix systems
because of the costs of maintaining VMS, DEC-type hardware and related
applications.
Because of Y2K problems, many VMS systems were replaced with unix or NT
systems because of costs to resolve the Y2K problem were higher than
getting new unix or NT systems.
The costs for many customers using VMS, typically on VAX clusters, to
change to the newer unix-based systems is very high and therefore
difficult to justify so they tend to remain with such "legacy systems".
At least until they are fed up with a stopped factory or feel they can
afford to switch.
> More than 50% of the world's cellular phone billing systems run
> OpenVMS.
Is that all??? So what? Many American phone calls are made with Unix(tm).
> More than 95% of the world's top financial exchanges run on OpenVMS or
> Tandem systems.
More misleading! Of the "95%" of the world's "top financial exchanges",
how many are running VMS and how many are Tandem systems? Tandem is/was
a competing system, no?
> For these reasons OpenVMS is used in many production environments and
> financial and medical institutions where non-interruptability and
> continuous computing (24*365) are an important issue. Military
> contractors also accept it as the one and only operating system for
> providing maximum security with maximum numerical throughput.
Yet more misleading!
VMS does indeed crash from time to time because of application behaviour
or load. The effect is felt less with large clusters. Then there are the
hardware failure issues.
A user in the midst of working with a file will still lose data when the
system crashes.
And once again, it is kept because of the costs of changing systems.
DOD was so impressed by VMS security that they rewrote portions of code
to greatly improve it's "maximum security".
VMS performance depends heavily on the hardware. It is optimized for
DEC-type hardware which is itself designed specifically for VMS. Use on
other hardware, if it is really possible, has problems.
>
> Still today many other operating systems have tried to come up to its
> level, but none of them come even close to the many qualities and
> advantages of OpenVMS.
No other OS except perhaps those by IBM, Amdahl, Control Data, and such
intended to directly compete with VMS have tried to come up to it's
level. Unix was not intended or designed to compete. Neither was MSDOS,
CP/M, AmigaDOS, Commodore BASIC, etc. But perhaps ZX-80 BASIC did once
aspire to compete--with TOPS, at least...
VMS is expensive. The licenses are expensive. The applications are
expensive. Servicing and maintaining VMS is expensive. The source code
is expensive. The manuals are expensive. The cost of a building to house
it all is expensive. The hardware is expensive. It all weighs too much.
It needs it's own power substation. Etc., etc., adn.
It is not something that some family in the burbs are going to buy to
install on the home PC. Johnny boy is not going to get the CD's or ftp
it and install it on his computer to play special Hacker Edition Doom or
use it to do his homework. There is no VMS version of Encarta. Dad is
not going to go out and get a VAX for the kitchen or family room. Mom
won't allow a 9-track in her kitchen--besides, it would wake the baby
when it flaps tape.
VMS is a high-end system for high-end users who can afford it.
And for those who are addicted to teco. like me...
And for the BOFH who lusts for absolute power. One mentioned that he
would sell his soul for a VAX w/ VMS and 10,000 users.
Though you probably copied this from some DEC sales literature you
really should stay away from them: you are not helping HPaq sell VMS. If
you are already there, you should be fired. You should not be allowed to
speak for HPaq. They should make you sign a nondiscussion agreement.
VMS has nothing to do with linux.security. So why did this really get
posted here? Trying to impress us with your inadequacies?
-- jdj (sorry... I just could not resist picking on this one...) I speak not for HPaQ. nor HPaQ for me. Just ask Carly! && Disclaimer.standard()
- Next message: Jens Schreiber: "Re: iptables + limit module"
- Previous message: Michael Erskine: "Re: I've been hacked...tips for a postmortem?"
- Maybe in reply to: Luke Vogel: "Re: Why OpenVMS is better than linux ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
