Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:74391 alt.religion.computers:2218 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: A3000UX competition Message-ID: <29400:Dec1405:54:4990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 14 Dec 90 05:54:49 GMT References: <16482@cbmvax.commodore.com> Organization: IR Lines: 33 In article <16499@cbmvax.commodore.com> martin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Martin Hunt) writes: > >I don't know of any OS, for example, which gives much control over > >when someone can log in. > VMS has that and much more built into it. Ah, yes, VMS. VMS, where the equivalent of ``make'' doesn't even come with the system. VMS, where you can buy an idle daemon for just $695 that UNIX users get for free off a source group. VMS, where DEC desperately tries to get its customers to install patches for security holes that are letting a virus run rampant through nearly every networked VMS machine in the world. VMS, where just one vendor has control, and will continue to set outrageous prices through next century. Now that's a cost-effective, secure operating system. > Why do > most businesses with VAXen run VMS? It's very expensive and does not > come with any source. Because it's easy to configure, is well supported > and doesn't require a Unix kernel hacker to support it? Oh, yeah, sure. Anyone who looks at the real statistics from DEC will observe that Ultrix and UNIX have slowly been eating away at the VMS market share. Even the most pessimistic projections show VMS with under half the VAX market by the year 2000. So why do you think this happens? Because VMS is so cost-effective and superior, right? ---Dan