Apparently VMS isn't "Enterprise" according to it's owners...

[Art Wiens]

From my "Customized HP Technology at Work, December 2005" email:

http://h30046.www3.hp.com/news_article.php?topiccode=20051110_281585_225_121_0_0&pagesite=LARGE_OOV&regioncode=NA&jumpid=em_EL_TAW/US/Dec05_ENT/sp/enterprise-operating-systems-IT

To quote:

"Enterprises IT departments are moving away from specialized, proprietary operating systems toward more interoperable and future-proof environments based on industry standards. Four essential enterprise operating systems have emerged as leaders."

VMS is not mentioned on the page! :-(

Sad but apparently "true",
Art

points assignment will be based on the "heat" of the flame ;-)

[Robert_Boyd]

Excuse me HP ... but what isn't proprietary about Windows? And ... since when did Windows become "secure"? Has Windows ever even been submitted for testing at the C2 level(much less B1)? They keep closing little peepholes around the edges of Windows, but there's still gaping holes in the heart of Windows you can drive a small truck through according to the experts.

OpenVMS doesn't have to emerge as a leader as an enterprise operating system ... it IS one of the leaders and has been for decades.

I guess this is like reading movie critics reviews. Some critics just can't tell a good movie from a bad one anymore because they're mostly all so bad. And the critics are so jaded that I can't trust much of what they have to say. I have to rely on my friends to tell me what kind of experience they had with it.

HP: "It's enterprise because we say so, so there. Be quiet and eat your brussel sprouts."

Robert

[Uwe Zessin]

> Has Windows ever even been submitted for testing at the C2 level

Yes. I think the first one was Windows NT V3.51.

Well, they had to lock parts of the registry, so you could no longer run Microsoft Office ;-)

> (much less B1)?

Who cares? Not that I want to argue in favour of other OSes, but many software environments in the industry run with ALL privileges enabled, or even a file protection of RWED,RWED,RWED,RWED.

Shouldn't people start with properly implementing C2 (which isn't relevant today, anyway) rather than dreaming about B1?

[Martin Vorlaender]

>>>
> Has Windows ever even been submitted for testing at the C2 level

Yes. I think the first one was Windows NT V3.51.
<<<

I seem to remember the C2 tests were done on an NT 3.5-1 system without floppy and network. ;-)

cu,
Martin

[Uwe Zessin]

That's possible, but the VMS evaluations didn't include DECnet either, did they?

People could only connect via async lines and had to power-cycle the terminal before login in order to clear any special configs made by the host.

[Jan van den Ende]

Well, I picked some of grains of MY choice:

.. and future-proof environments ..

Like there are 2003 and XP? We have already been given pre-announcements of Vista, which include estimates of the amount of effort needed to -- MIGRATE --

.. Windows 2003 is a multipurpose operating system capable of handling a diverse set of server roles, depending on your needs. Some of these server roles include: File and print; Web and Web application services; Mail; Terminal; and remote access and virtual private network (VPN); directory and streaming media. ..

Well, maybe if you dedicate a separate server to each role. But DO NOT COMBINE THEM, as would be expected for a multi-purpose system!

.. [Windows 3000] is ..extremely .. , reliable, scalable, and secure platform for ..

Oh yeah! On a scale from 0 to 100 it probably even reaches double digits, given enough qualified and dedicated administators with LOTS of time! Reliable? Until the next freeze or crash. Scalable? by what factor? Compared with the same for VMS? Secure? With the exception of the umpteen CERT warnings that is. For the lifetime of any windows platform, they average (way!) more warnings per day than VMS collected in the whole existence of CERT!

.. [Windows 3000] low TCO allow companies to do more with less. ..
I seem to remember TCO reports that were WAY more positive over VMS than any other OS.

.. The next Windows Server, code-named â Longhorn,â is due to ship in 2007. ..

If history has any predictive value for the future "MS timescales do not necessarily coincide with the human calendar"
( (c) Terry Shannon, at the Copenhagen Decus 1997, but still VERY valid! )

... to Linux can yield drastic reductions in software licensing fees, support costs, and administration...
Licensing fees: YES
support cost: maybe, to be demonstrated
administration: yeah, you bet! I choose to disagree VERY STRONGLY!

.. Linux is designed to be secure, is bundled with robust security software, ..
"designed to be secure"? anyone knowledgeable would not DARE to say so!
Yes, (like Windows) they are TRYING to ADD security features to Linux, but that is a LONG way away from "designed"

.. HP UX 11i-based servers are designed to protect business operations from major interruptions that impact the whole data center ..

Well, as a telling sign in this may perhaps serve, the comment from Florian Heigl in

http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=855602


Peeking in from the MC/SG, not even TruCluster corner, I can just say this merely unbelievable for us.


I think this will do for now, but I could perhaps go on for hours.
But I am afraid that this is just more "Preaching to the converted". Alas....

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

Pity one won't get anywhere showing this to management :(

[Jan van den Ende]

somehow the tail of the previous post got mangled.
It should be:

.
.
.


.. HP UX 11i-based servers are designed to protect business operations from major interruptions that impact the whole data center ..

Well, as a telling sign in this may perhaps serve, the comment from Florian Heigl in

http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=855602


Peeking in from the MC/SG, not even TruCluster corner, I can just say this merely unbelievable for us.

Pity one won't get anywhere showing this to management :(



I think this will do for now, but I could perhaps go on for hours.
But I am afraid that this is just more "Preaching to the converted". Alas....

.
.
.

Maybe this way it makes some more sense.


Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Jan van den Ende]

Art,

below is a copy of the email I just sent to
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/hpads/contactus.html


The entire content of
http://h30046.www3.hp.com/news_article.php?topiccode=20051110_281585_225_121_0_0&pagesite=LARGE_OOV&regioncode=NA&jumpid=em_EL_TAW/US/Dec05_ENT/sp/enterprise-operating-systems-IT

is a downright INSULT to the comlete VMS community!

It totally IGNORES the MOST stable MOST secure operatingsystem available, one that happens to also carry the HP brand.

For some more details see my response in
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=981317

HP marketing and management should be looking in their own portfolio for the jewels hidden there, instead of selling fools gold!

Sorry, but I am DEEPLY hurt (again) by the total negelct of VMS.

Yours sincerely,

Jan van den Ende


I don't think it will help, but I could not stop myself from it.

Proost.

Have one on me.

jpe

[Dave Gudewicz · Accepted solution]

I sent a note to 2 people in the higher ranks of HP's BCS group about the article mentioned in this thread and asked them why OpenVMS was not mentioned. When/if I hear back from them, I'll post their answers here.

Dave...

[Mike Reznak]

Hi,

it's nice to read sentences, which come also from my heart.

But I, sadly, may be a bit understand a bussiness reason of this choice.
Why to put VMS among enterprise, if it's rather expensive and so not selling.
Why to have high secure system, when then there will be almost no need for making security applications, wide sold and allways updated.
There might be many whys behind this decision. But, as I believe through many years, OpenVMS was and will be one of the best OS, even many people have been and are predicting it's extinction. (since ten years back, thats as far as I can remember)

Mike

[Peter Quodling]

ON the Issue of VMS and DOD Security, Indeed, the C2 level was the default for VMS, and later versions of Windoze (post NT3.5).

Where VMS Stood out was a "product" known as SEVMS, which was a B1 level enhanced Secure system available from DEC.

Little known fact, but a prototype "A1" Secure OpenVMS was built, as I recall in ZKO, in the late 80's, early 90's. If my memory serves me, there are only 2 or 3 systems that every reached that standard. One, the Honeywell "SCOMP", was nicknamed the "brick" because it ran like one. A1VMS, as I recall, pulled about 40% of the CPU in Security Overheads, but it could be done.

Of course, the other major point that is lost from the original posting is "based on industry standards". Those of us with long memories, will recall when "Unix" communities tried to develop Unix accreditation standards to depolarize the varieties of Unixes out there... The first two O/S's to pass the Unix compatability test suite, were, as I recall OpenVMS and IBM MVS.

Why is it that the "industry" is suddenly "relearning" by divine inspiration, things that we determined by hard science over a decade ago.

q

[Art Wiens]

Well said Peter!

Cheers,
Art

[Dave Gudewicz]

As of this morning, no reply from the BCS people on the mentioned article.

Dave...

[Robert_Boyd]

Isn't COBOL supposed to be extinct by now?

;-)

[Dave Gudewicz]

Its been a week now since I sent my note to the BCS higher-ups. Still no response. This is the first time I've not heard back from them in a timely manner and I've sent several notes their way over the years.

Dave...

[Dave Gudewicz]

Just in case my first note had a problem of some sort (unreadable URL, etc) I sent another note to one of the BCS people a few minutes ago.

Dave...

[Dave Gudewicz]

Heard back from the BCS people. Their reply was that they were looking into the situation.

Dave...

[Art Wiens]

I would expect the response from the BCS group will be their acronym minus the C.

:-)
Art

[Tom O'Toole]

This sounds like it was right out of a "Gartner group" (partially owned by bill gates) "white paper".

I guess we can all thank HP for the time and money they spend being a camel for bill gates, the result being the numerous 'enterprise management solutions architectures' that have been foisted on customers regardless of their needs.

[William Webb_2]

Hi,

it's nice to read sentences, which come also from my heart.

But I, sadly, may be a bit understand a bussiness reason of this choice.
Why to put VMS among enterprise, if it's rather expensive and so not selling.
Why to have high secure system, when then there will be almost no need for making security applications, wide sold and allways updated.
There might be many whys behind this decision. But, as I believe through many years, OpenVMS was and will be one of the best OS, even many people have been and are predicting it's extinction. (since ten years back, thats as far as I can remember)

Mike

Mike-

You'll be glad to know that you're wrong.

I can't release specifics but VMS is far from fading; in fact it's making inroads in places it hasn't been before (or at least for quite some time).

There are instances of companies migrating away from VMS (and spending a LOT of money to do so) and then returning because they couldn't stomach the decrease in reliability.

[Ian Miller.]

this thread is heading dangerously towards comp.os.vms territory. Posts here should be technical.

It's true what is being said but this is not the place for it.

(IMHO)

[Art Wiens]

Your probably correct Ian. I was quite dissapointed when the article came out, everybody got a chance to blow off a bit of steam. In the end, if nothing else, _we_ know we work on enterprise class systems.

In the spirit of Christmas I'll stick a fork in it ... it's done!

Cheers,
Art