Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cfa!ward
From: ward@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Ward)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Help us defend against VMS!
Message-ID: <892@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>
Date: 4 Mar 88 19:48:55 GMT
References: <2235@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
Lines: 65
Summary: VMS paranoia


I have many complaints about VMS and DEC educational/research sales
policies, but I have{  lots of positive comments, too.

Relax, I know Unix is a{   lifestyle and VMS is only an operating
system, but it isn't as bad as some (B. Shein) say.

VMS has an excellent Fortran compiler and any serious Fortran number
cruncher in research will cry its virtues.  Unix only has one Fortran
compiler{  in the same league with the VMS compiler, and it is the DEC
Fortran-for-Ultrix compiler.

VMS manuals are very expensive.

VMS programming interfaces are overly complicated, often remaining
confusing even after wading through massive manuals, believe me, this
stuff is arcane.  Go to a native IBM OS for a real taste of arcane.
VMS is fast and has fewer bugs and breakdowns than most OS's.  There are
different levels at which you can program the file system and I/O, the
general areas of complication.  This helps a little.  Unix is no picnic
in the I/O area, either.  It seems every Unix port has different I/O
system calls or the same names with different arguments -- how about all
those different IOCTL's?  Of course, simple things are done fairly
easily in either Unix or VMS.  Writing system-level code can be painful
in Unix or VMS, but give me Unix for system code anyday (90% less grief,
but the remaining 10% can be BIG).

Neither Unix or VMS makes an interesting OS design or theory study.
They are both old and both have good features and bad features.
Certainly these features should be studied in the learning process but
OS research lies in writing/simulating new OS's or features.  Having
ready access and control of the entire computer hardware (for arbitrary
reboots, crash analysis, etc) is probably important here, along with
decent cross-asembler and cross-compiler support.  Two of the same
machine is always nice for OS work, one for compiles and one as a guinea
pig.  Allright, I admit it, I'd rather do this from Unix, but since I
use both OS's, I must say it matters little whether the compile engine
is running VMS or Unix.

We have researchers using the NSF supercomputer facilities from VMS and
Unix workstations via DECNET networks and the Internet, so this is a
wash.  

Certainly VMS is no more "in the past" or "necrophilic" than Unix, Mr.
Shein.  When all is said and done, Unix and VMS have many pluses and
minuses.  The priorities of a given situation will apply weights to
these plusses and minuses and will result in a choice.  In most cases a
fair evaluation will result in a tough decision.  I prefer Unix because
VMS layered software products are so expensive.  The other differences
are a wash for me because I am not interested in a single (or a few)
salient feature.  As I said, the pros and cons of both OS's abound, but
largely balance out.

I prefer open architecture and hope that POSIX and IEEE standardized
Unix are realized in the marketplace.

The thrust of my comments are to offer some responsible balance to the
emotional anti-VMS rhetoric.  This is not an attempt to "prove" anything
, just to give DEC and VMS a chance at a fair shake.  Except for some
economic arguments I think that most of the VMS/Unix complaints and
praises balance out or can be reduced to personal preferences.

Now, to get to work on what will be the real "best" OS ..... (ha!)....

.