Linked by David Adams on Sat 11th Oct 2008 16:38 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
HP has released a roadmap outlining future development of OpenVMS, the operating system that commercialized many features that are now considered standard requirements for any high-end server operating system. (Such as Integrated networking, Symmetrical, asymmetrical, and NUMA multiprocessing, including clustering, distributed file system (Files-11),
Integrated database features, support for multiple computer programming languages, hardware partitioning of multiprocessors, etc). With over 30 years of development, OpenVMS has stood the test of time and has continued to evolve as one of the most secure and trusted mission critical OS's of our time.
Thread beginning with comment 333348
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-02
Itanium is a cool and funky architecture, but average people aren't going to want to run them. For one, they produce an appreciable and surprising amount of heat (my relatively early generation HP Itanium2 machine produces more heat than 4 other machines put together).
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-06
I'd say that over half the performance and stability is due to the combination of the hardware and software rather than simply the software alone.
Sysadmins have to tatoo that quote on their chests. It's the key of any reliable system. That's why OpenVMS, zSeries and UNIX boxes rule.
Wintel and Lintel boxes lack that deep hard+soft integration. And please, don't tell me that Linux boxes are stable and great. They suck and suck really hard. Sorry.
PD: I love GNU/Linux, but the truth must be said.
Member since:2005-07-06
I'd say that over half the performance and stability is due to the combination of the hardware and software rather than simply the software alone.
Sysadmins have to tatoo that quote on their chests. It's the key of any reliable system. That's why OpenVMS, zSeries and UNIX boxes rule.
Wintel and Lintel boxes lack that deep hard+soft integration. And please, don't tell me that Linux boxes are stable and great. They suck and suck really hard. Sorry.
PD: I love GNU/Linux, but the truth must be said.
Sysadmins have to tatoo that quote on their chests. It's the key of any reliable system. That's why OpenVMS, zSeries and UNIX boxes rule.
Wintel and Lintel boxes lack that deep hard+soft integration. And please, don't tell me that Linux boxes are stable and great. They suck and suck really hard. Sorry.
PD: I love GNU/Linux, but the truth must be said.
I remember when Linux first came out - most people here ignore who used it first, and the reason for it - thats not to say that there is anything wrong with Linux, it is just the fact that once you get to a certain level of reliability as part of your system requirements; it seperates the boys (Linux and Windows) from the men (OpenVMS, Solaris, AIX, HPUX etc.).
Yes, there are some vendors who are producing very reliable hardware for the Windows and Linux world - but the cost of that hardware is so high, the difference between that an a UNIX RISC system is so small, one might as well just go for the UNIX system and be done with it.
Member since:2005-07-06
And please, don't tell me that Linux boxes are stable and great. They suck and suck really hard. Sorry.
PD: I love GNU/Linux, but the truth must be said.
PD: I love GNU/Linux, but the truth must be said.
Take a look at all those supercomputer clusters out there, with anything between 1000 to 4000 nodes in them, all runing Linux. These systems don't have a habit of failing on a regular basis.
Member since:2005-07-07
Sysadmins have to tatoo that quote on their chests. It's the key of any reliable system. That's why OpenVMS, zSeries and UNIX boxes rule.
Wintel and Lintel boxes lack that deep hard+soft integration. And please, don't tell me that Linux boxes are stable and great. They suck and suck really hard. Sorry.
Wintel and Lintel boxes lack that deep hard+soft integration. And please, don't tell me that Linux boxes are stable and great. They suck and suck really hard. Sorry.
The difference here is that Linux is slowly taking over that space because the hardware companies can actually submit changes to integrate their hardware better with Linux. Even if the code is not accepted, vendors can maintain patchsets for their hardware. This is much more difficult for Apple or Microsoft operating systems becaues you have to rely on the OS vendor to make these changes. Over the past 10 years a lot of enterprise features have been added directly from integrated UNIX systems like Solaris and AIX.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Although that would be great, I'd say that over half the performance and stability is due to the combination of the hardware and software rather than simply the software alone. I remember writing an assignment on OpenVMS, and the history of DEC's hardware. From the early days to VAX then through to Alpha. The only let down DEC had was that it was a company run by engineers - resulting in great products but marketed so poorly.
With that being said, they could do a x86-64 port but it would require very very narrow parameters, and it would only run on a very small range of hardware - then at the end the question could be asked, would it make businesses sense? I guess there have been questions raised like this in HP but the business boffins have number crunched and decided it wasn't feasible. With that being said, it would be interesting to see once Intel moves to the single motherboard platform where Xeon and Itanium can be swapped - it'll mean that Itanium processors will become accessible through retail channels; be it they be very specialised.
Edited 2008-10-11 23:17 UTC