🚀 go-pugleaf

[Followups to vmsnet.vms-posix]

In article <2415@mitech.com>, gjc@mitech.com (George J. Carrette) writes:
>By the way, the official name of VMS is now OpenVMS.
>
>So much for vmsnet...

The official name for UCX is now TCP/IP services for VMS. Big deal. When people
actually start referring to it as OpenVMS in conversation, it'll be something to
think about.

Besides (semi-inflamatory personal opinion follows) they justify the name
OpenVMS by Posix compatibility. This will be a reasonable thing to do when VMS
Posix performs somewhere better than an 8086 based PC with 640K on my 32MB
VS3100/76. 

They could start by implementing the things that they said in a decus session
that they were going to implement. They went to a lot of trouble to set up a
satellite link to Italy so the developer could tell us what was in VMS Posix.
One of them was unix-style light-weight processes (complete with a cute drawing
likening a unix process to a sparrow and a VMS process to a vulture). I can
understand them wanting to get things out the door, but DEC hasn't acknowleged
anywhere I've seen that the performance stinks, and they haven't said they are
going to do anything about it. They are talking about Posix 1.1 as if it were
out, and it isn't, and they still haven't said whether it fixes any performance
problems (obviously, since they haven't acknowleged any performance problems).

Has anyone else noticed that lately all the marketting hype and even published
benchmarks are for software versions that aren't out yet? I've been reading
about Rdb 4.1 for a long time, I think since last year. It isn't out yet either,
but DEC has already published TPS numbers to convince everyone how great it is.
Slimy marketting.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA