On 12 Jul 2004 at 8:59, Nic Clews wrote:
> For the last point, an "it depends". Certain real time type
> bet-your-ass applications can't afford to be hostage to a fluffy
> teabag with no concept of reality.

Windows is not the only platform choice for CHARON-VAX.

> And if anyone is in the real-time business, you'll know exactly what I
> mean.

Absolutely.

> For "custom hardware", for VAXen you've led a sheltered life.
> Breadboard and rough sawn edges must be unknown.

I hope that no part of the world's defense systems are deployed as a 
breadboard (except for the "bad guys", whoever they are).

> how many millions of $$ do you think it takes to keep up with the
> latest vulnerabilities, keeping the o/s in a 'cleanroom', and over a 40
> year period perform multiple Windows migrations from version to
> version?

Most vulnerabilities are due to Windows being connected to a network. 
Lots of military systems were deployed without network connectivity, 
and so the Windows box can be equally secure.  Just keep people away 
from the keyboard.

And if you're using VMS 4.5, there's no reason to hurry along to stay 
current with Windows...

> One size does not fit all. Again (shamelessly).

I never said that CHARON-VAX is the cure-all.  It's an option that 
deserves consideration.  Heck, some people are better off with a re-
write.

--Stan Quayle
Quayle Consulting Inc.

----------
Stanley F. Quayle, P.E. N8SQ  +1 614-868-1363
8572 North Spring Ct., Pickerington, OH  43147  USA
stan-at-stanq-dot-com       http://www.stanq.com

Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2004 at 8:59, Nic Clews wrote:
> 
>>For the last point, an "it depends". Certain real time type
>>bet-your-ass applications can't afford to be hostage to a fluffy
>>teabag with no concept of reality.
> 
> 
> Windows is not the only platform choice for CHARON-VAX.

However this is never emphasised...


>>And if anyone is in the real-time business, you'll know exactly what I
>>mean.
> 
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> 
>>For "custom hardware", for VAXen you've led a sheltered life.
>>Breadboard and rough sawn edges must be unknown.
> 
> 
> I hope that no part of the world's defense systems are deployed as a 
> breadboard (except for the "bad guys", whoever they are).

No comment. Then again it depends who you think the bad guys are.

I guess the one thing you should be grateful for is Windows is nowhere 
near it.

Charon is available for Alpha, but it is not the first choice. In 
general people immediately believe it must be a Windows platform, and it 
sure appears cheaper.

And speaking of the bad guys, just how easy is it to take out a VAX? 
Break in or bomb some place, or send out one of those dang viruses?

>>how many millions of $$ do you think it takes to keep up with the
>>latest vulnerabilities, keeping the o/s in a 'cleanroom', and over a 40
>>year period perform multiple Windows migrations from version to
>>version?
> 
> 
> Most vulnerabilities are due to Windows being connected to a network. 
> Lots of military systems were deployed without network connectivity, 
> and so the Windows box can be equally secure.  Just keep people away 
> from the keyboard.

Were.

Some yes are without networks, but less so now.

We've not really talked about the "Windows just does that" syndrome, not 
even a question of being secure


> And if you're using VMS 4.5, there's no reason to hurry along to stay 
> current with Windows...

Ah but there is, this is the problem. Have you tried some of the older 
operating systems on later hardware? If you had hair, you certainly 
won't finish the exercise with any. The pee cee world has no real 
concept of longevity, ok maybe the Proliants of the world, maybe the 
powerpc, but they are still driven by market forces, when the smallest 
disk you can get is totally incompatible with the o/s [loose 
description] you're trying to use. USB mouse with everything.

"Also available for Alpha running OpenVMS."

-- 
Regards, Nic Clews a.k.a. Mr. Car Park Charges, CSC Computer Sciences
nclews at csc dot com

Nic Clews wrote:
> Stanley F. Quayle wrote:
> 
>> On 12 Jul 2004 at 8:59, Nic Clews wrote:
>>
>>> For the last point, an "it depends". Certain real time type
>>> bet-your-ass applications can't afford to be hostage to a fluffy
>>> teabag with no concept of reality.
>>
>>
>>
>> Windows is not the only platform choice for CHARON-VAX.
> 
> 
> However this is never emphasised...
> 
> 
>>> And if anyone is in the real-time business, you'll know exactly what I
>>> mean.
>>
>>
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>
>>> For "custom hardware", for VAXen you've led a sheltered life.
>>> Breadboard and rough sawn edges must be unknown.
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope that no part of the world's defense systems are deployed as a 
>> breadboard (except for the "bad guys", whoever they are).
> 
> 
> No comment. Then again it depends who you think the bad guys are.
> 
> I guess the one thing you should be grateful for is Windows is nowhere 
> near it.
> 
> Charon is available for Alpha, but it is not the first choice. In 
> general people immediately believe it must be a Windows platform, and it 
> sure appears cheaper.
> 
> And speaking of the bad guys, just how easy is it to take out a VAX? 
> Break in or bomb some place, or send out one of those dang viruses?
> 
>>> how many millions of $$ do you think it takes to keep up with the
>>> latest vulnerabilities, keeping the o/s in a 'cleanroom', and over a 40
>>> year period perform multiple Windows migrations from version to
>>> version?
>>
>>
>>
>> Most vulnerabilities are due to Windows being connected to a network. 
>> Lots of military systems were deployed without network connectivity, 
>> and so the Windows box can be equally secure.  Just keep people away 
>> from the keyboard.
> 
> 
> Were.
> 
> Some yes are without networks, but less so now.
> 
> We've not really talked about the "Windows just does that" syndrome, not 
> even a question of being secure
> 
> 
>> And if you're using VMS 4.5, there's no reason to hurry along to stay 
>> current with Windows...
> 
> 
> Ah but there is, this is the problem. Have you tried some of the older 
> operating systems on later hardware? If you had hair, you certainly 
> won't finish the exercise with any. The pee cee world has no real 
> concept of longevity, ok maybe the Proliants of the world, maybe the 
> powerpc, but they are still driven by market forces, when the smallest 
> disk you can get is totally incompatible with the o/s [loose 
> description] you're trying to use. USB mouse with everything.
> 
> "Also available for Alpha running OpenVMS."
> 

I hope you don't mind my chiming in at this point. But I have a thought 
to add here...

Many of the surviving installations of OpenVMS on VAX are still running 
for "mission-critical" reasons, and have consequently higher than 
average demands on the stability of their environments. Speed would be a 
lesser consideration than having predictable performance and 
reliability.  When you place your existing OS environment on top of 
another OS, you have made your system dependant on the foibles of two 
operating system installations instead of just one. When the two 
operating systems are also very different from one another, and likely 
have very different reactions to enviromnental influences, you have not 
only complicated your system but also compounded the potential errors 
which can occurr that influence the systems stability. What I'm saying 
is, irrespective of the quality of the operating systems involved, the 
placing of an OS on top of a similar or same OS will in principle be a 
more stable total system than placing the OS on top of a different one 
which has a different set of problems compounding the set of potential 
problems in the entire system.

In other words, for many demanding customers, CHARON VAX on OpenVMS 
Alpha (and later on IPF) is an important option that shouldn't be 
casually overlooked for the sake of placing their system on cheaper or 
faster (integer ops) pop OS/Hardware.

There are also situations/aspects inwhich older VAX applications are 
able to take advantage of the latest OpenVMS Alpha cluster and storage 
features which would be unavailable if left on the VAX or moved to a 
Intel 32-bit PC base system.

Cheers!


Keith Cayemberg
IBM Business Services GmbH - Hanover, Germany

Keith Cayemberg wrote:
> Nic Clews wrote:
> 

[snip]

>> Ah but there is, this is the problem. Have you tried some of the older 
>> operating systems on later hardware? If you had hair, you certainly 
>> won't finish the exercise with any. The pee cee world has no real 
>> concept of longevity, ok maybe the Proliants of the world, maybe the 
>> powerpc, but they are still driven by market forces, when the smallest 
>> disk you can get is totally incompatible with the o/s [loose 
>> description] you're trying to use. USB mouse with everything.
>>
>> "Also available for Alpha running OpenVMS."
>>
> 
> I hope you don't mind my chiming in at this point. But I have a thought 
> to add here...
> 
> Many of the surviving installations of OpenVMS on VAX are still running 
> for "mission-critical" reasons, and have consequently higher than 
> average demands on the stability of their environments. Speed would be a 
> lesser consideration than having predictable performance and 
> reliability.  When you place your existing OS environment on top of 
> another OS, you have made your system dependant on the foibles of two 
> operating system installations instead of just one. When the two 
> operating systems are also very different from one another, and likely 
> have very different reactions to enviromnental influences, you have not 
> only complicated your system but also compounded the potential errors 
> which can occurr that influence the systems stability. What I'm saying 
> is, irrespective of the quality of the operating systems involved, the 
> placing of an OS on top of a similar or same OS will in principle be a 
> more stable total system than placing the OS on top of a different one 
> which has a different set of problems compounding the set of potential 
> problems in the entire system.
>

Added to that with CHARON-VAX for OVMS/Alpha there is the advantage of 
using a common set of adminstration tools for both the host and the 
emulated VAX.

The same goes for support. Dealing with just OVMS Engineering plus SRI 
has to be easier than adding either Linux or MS support; it also 
decreases the chance of finger pointing between suppliers.

> In other words, for many demanding customers, CHARON VAX on OpenVMS 
> Alpha (and later on IPF) is an important option that shouldn't be 
> casually overlooked for the sake of placing their system on cheaper or 
> faster (integer ops) pop OS/Hardware.
> 

And here is a case in point. Now I know that at various times Hoff 
himself has recommended a wipe and load installation to get rid of 
cruft, but I feel that recommending this approach for all users is plain 
wrong:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/deploy/upwpload.mspx


"Upgrade or Wipe-and-Load
Choosing the Best Scenario for Deploying Windows XP Professional

....

Summary

This white paper described the risks and benefits of two scenarios for 
deploying Windows XP Professional: in-place upgrade and wipe-and-load. 
The first scenario involves upgrading an existing configuration to 
Windows XP Professional. Users don�t loose their documents and settings, 
and already installed applications remain. At first glance, the in-place 
upgrade scenario seems like the easiest method to use, since Windows XP 
Setup runs fully unattended and users keep their current configurations. 
However, this scenario is not as straightforward is it seems, and the 
traits that make this scenario seem easy are the very ones that make it 
so complex. You learned about these complexities in the section 
�In-Place Upgrade Risks.�

In the wipe-and-load scenario, you replace a computer�s current 
configuration with a reference configuration. As you learned in the 
section �Wipe-and-Load Risks,� this scenario has few risks, and most of 
the risks associated with it are easily overcome with tools that 
Microsoft provides for free. In fact, the rewards far exceed the risks. 
Rather than perpetuating an unmanaged environment, the wipe-and-load 
scenario resets configurations to a standardized, reference 
configuration that�s easier to manage and support. In this scenario, you 
don�t carry forward existing problems�rather, you start fresh. You can 
learn more about the benefits of this scenario at �Desktop Deployment 
Center: Evaluate.� For these reasons, Microsoft recommends that you 
choose the wipe-and-load scenario to deploy Windows XP Professional."

> There are also situations/aspects inwhich older VAX applications are 
> able to take advantage of the latest OpenVMS Alpha cluster and storage 
> features which would be unavailable if left on the VAX or moved to a 
> Intel 32-bit PC base system.
> 

And you can use good old BACKUP for the lot too :-)