Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!udel!burdvax!sdcrdcf!csun!sef
From: sef@csun.UUCP (Sean Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Re: Help us defend against VMS!
Message-ID: <1149@csun.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 88 21:47:51 GMT
References: <695@unm-la.UUCP> <4583@garfield.UUCP> <2134@ukecc.engr.uky.edu> <3201@phri.UUCP>
Reply-To: sef@csun.UUCP (Sean Fagan)
Organization: CSU, Northridge Sun Computer
Lines: 28
Keywords: VMS port other machines non-VAXen

In article <3201@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>lynn@engr.uky.edu (H. Lynn Tilley) writes:
>> Despite what the VMS defenders like to say, RISC is here and VMS is not
>> projected to be compatible across this architecture.
>	If I understand Henry correctly, he's saying that you can't port
>VMS to a RISC machine.  Why not?  Other than it's proprietary nature, what
>is there to prevent a VMS port hardware other than a vax?

Nothing.  In fact, if you look into an Elxsi, you'll see that they (claim)
to be source-code compatable with VMS, and have their own DCL-like shell
(seems to be pretty good, execpt that something like 'FORTRASH <File>' works
under VMS and not under ECL [Elxsi's Command Line thingamajig; the whole
works are known as EMS]).  I don't know how valid their claims are, but they
do have a fast machine, lots of processors, runs Unix (both versions), their
VMS close, and their own OS (all at the same time).  Of course, binaries
don't work, but they're trying to get as many people as possible to
recompile as possible.  MACRO-32 won't work, either.
Of course, I have know affiliations with Elxsi other than the fact that I
want one of their machines for a PC.

>Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy


-- 

Sean Fagan                   uucp:   {ihnp4,hplabs,psivax}!csun!sef
CSUN Computer Center         BITNET: 1GTLSEF@CALSTATE
Northridge, CA 91330         (818) 885-2790